Legalised Infanticide

[NOX]

I'm not usually at a loss for words about much, but for a good few moments this article left me speechless. Just wondered what everyone else thought.
http://www.dailymail....?ICO=most_read_module

[cazzz1975]

Its a shame that she feels that disabled children do not deserve a chance at life.

[lcg]

a little bit too far, methinks. i'm pro choice, but that is just horrific!

[NOX]

Well glad it wasn't just me who thought she was morally appalling. I wonder what her cut off age is, I mean she's only 28 and hasn't turned out very well...

[jno]

it does raise awkward questions about why something that is legal before birth should be illegal after it. Or more to the point, why we should feel so very differently about it. Abortion because a child would be inconvenient is routine, surely?

[NOX]

Although I am pro choice because the alternative is more unpalletable and no right minded person wants to return to the days of secret back street abortions, I am not generally in favour of it unless all other avenues have been explored and it would seriously damage the mother emotionally or physically to go through with the pregnancy. The idea that a child could be killed because someone had changed their mind and couldn't be bothered to bring it up, had a minor disability or perhaps didn't likle it's hair colour and thus didn't want it, or just fancied resuming their night clubbing activities instead is really not the same thing. This is what this idiot is advocating, that people can choose to kill their baby rather than have it adopted simply because they changed their mind about parenthood.

[ChuckFickens]

I'm pro-choice too generally...

But this is too far!

Chuck
(and unwanted baby, adopted at birth)

[trt]

My wife caught Rubella 31 years ago and was told that the baby could be deformed and we had a choice to have it aborted.

We didn't thank God, as he only has a hearing problem, which he has to wear an hearing aid.

A lovely man he turned out to be and a good career.

[DaisyNonna]

That makes me sick to my stomach. Absolutely disgusting. Pity she could not be prosecuted for moral turpitude.

[chaptazbru]

And who would kill the newborn baby, and how?? Barbaric .....

[ummmm]

My Aunt also caught rubella whilst pregnant. My cousin is severely disabled....although it's been very hard for them she has brought lot's of happiness. Her siblings adore her.

[naomi24]

//And who would kill the newborn baby, and how??//

The baby isn't killed as such - it isn't fed and therefore 'allowed' to die. It happens in this country already - or at least it used to. I was listening to a discussion about this yesterday, and apparently it's perfectly legal in Holland.

[ummmm]

:-( How awful...

[Paul_M]

This is the daily mail. It reports that one person has said they think 'should' and everyone gets rightly mad. Mission accomplished, are you all suitable full of indignant rage now?

[sunny-dave]

If I was a conspiracy theorist (pass the tinfoil underpants please), I'd assume that this story was actually a 'plant' by the anti-abortion lobby to whip up public anger which can then be used to further the 'all abortion is wrong' argument ...

[naomi24]

It's not just the Mail.

http://www.telegraph....tion-experts-say.html

[daffy654]

I read this article yesterday and was horrified- until I did further research. The lady concerned is not asking for this to be made law. She and her research partner were just presenting an academic argument.

Hundreds of years ago it was common for unwanted babies to be left outside to die, the practice was known as exposure and wasn't in any way frowned upon, this is going back to Roman times however and I am glad we don't do this now!

[NOX]

There is a massive difference between ' allowing' a child who will never have any quality of life whatsoever and be in constant and unbearable pain to die shortyly after birth and what this person is suggesting. She is suggesting that if the mother's financial situation changes or if she simply changes her mind then it would be acceptable for us to euthanise ( not leave to die, euthanise) a perfectly viable baby who may be completely healthy or have a minor disability.
If we allowed that for example where would it end? What would the cut off point be? Would it be immediately after birth or would it then be argued it might be okay to give say a disabled child a chance for a few months and see if their condition improved and then maybe get stretched to say 6 months? After that, what happens if your perfectly healthy child suddenly befalls an accident and is then left disabled as happened to my youngest daughter? Would we then be asked if we still wanted her around because she is now in a wheelchair? Think about it- this is the slipperiest slope I have seen proposed for some time, and one of the most morally ugly. I find the whole idea repellent and unnatural in what is supposed to be a civilised society.

[Mosaic]

Re. Naomi's point: I can recall accounts from my youth of women who were simply told by doctors that the baby would no longer be fed and that it was 'for the best'.
Just on a practical level, I'm assuming the woman at the centre of the story has never given birth. Your mind changes about practically everything once you go through this and that includes how you view all babies born alive.
So are these philosophical words from someone whose philosophy has been forged theoretically rather than through perosnal experience?