If a physician determines that a woman is carrying a child that has a strong likelihood of being born with severe mental or physical defects, would you consider aborting the more humane thing to do?

Strong likelihood is not enough for me. I would never get an abortion after 3 months anyway.

Yeah because HOW can you know if the doctor was right until AFTER the baby is born? What if it was perfectly healthy and you aborted it for nothing, just because Dr. Giggles said so?

If tests show that it ain't developing the right way and wont be healthy then go ahead and let it go. I dont see the point in bringing kids in the world thats gonna sufferlifelong cause of ailments than die a pained death, you dont do thatshit.

I don't support the idea of killing somebody because they might suffer later. What if after the child is born, the doctor says they aren't normal, do we smother them? IMO, aborting kids due to possible "defects" is more to spare YOU some trial more than it is to spare the kid. Killing the kid cause he or she isn't perfect just basically strikes me as conditional love.

Wadsworth wrote:

If tests show that it ain't developing the right way and wont be healthy then go ahead and let it go. I dont see the point in bringing kids in the world thats gonna sufferlifelong cause of ailments than die a pained death, you dont do thatshit.

Except how can a doctor determine BEFORE the kid is born or even fully developed, if it will suffer long and WILL 'die a pained death'? Where's the test that guarantees 100% accuracy in predicting if your kid will 'live long and prosper' or not? That's right, there ain't one, it's a gamble any time you have a kid, doesn't mean we abort them all just to save the trouble.

Supernova wrote:

Except how can a doctor determine BEFORE the kid is born or even fully developed, if it will suffer long and WILL 'die a pained death'? Where's the test that guarantees 100% accuracy in predicting if your kid will 'live long and prosper' or not? That's right, there ain't one, it's a gamble any time you have a kid, doesn't mean we abort them all just to save the trouble.

I've known several people who were supposed to either not live long after birth or whatever and they defied all the odds. Killing somebody at any sign of trouble just shows a lack of love for that person.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

I've known several people who were supposed to either not live long after birth or whatever and they defied all the odds. Killing somebody at any sign of trouble just shows a lack of love for that person.

Indeeeeeed, and how about all the people who ARE disabled in some way AFTER birth? Ray Charles? Stevie Wonder? Beethoven? Helen Keller? If a blind, deaf girl can graduate from college, there's no reason in hell we need to kill off somebody just because Dr. Jekyll says they MIGHT have a problem.

Supernova wrote:

Indeeeeeed, and how about all the people who ARE disabled in some way AFTER birth? Ray Charles? Stevie Wonder? Beethoven? Helen Keller? If a blind, deaf girl can graduate from college, there's no reason in hell we need to kill off somebody just because Dr. Jekyll says they MIGHT have a problem.

Yup! But then again, perhaps it is the eugenics that is a strong force behind the industry still.

Supernova wrote:

Yeah because HOW can you know if the doctor was right until AFTER the baby is born? What if it was perfectly healthy and you aborted it for nothing, just because Dr. Giggles said so?

What if the obstetrician was correct in their conclusion, strongly advised a medical abortion...but she decides to chance it and winds up giving birth to a severely disabled child? Whose day to day life will be constantly physically painful. It's fine to be skeptical of one doctors prognosis and to get a second, third or fourth opinions. Heaven forbid, if I ever became preggers and was given a grim outlook of my child's fate, I would get another opinion. But if the multiple opinions all concluded the same thing, then I would abort. I think it's cruel to bring a child into the world knowing beforehand that his or condition will be grim and that their daily life will ALWAYS be a struggle. You have to take into consideration what all of their special needs will be, medical treatments and if your insurance will cover it, their schooling, how well they will or won't be able to function in society and who'd take care of them if something were to happen to you.

Which takes us back to the question, what if something went wrong with the baby right after it was born and it had a problem then that it would have every day? What, do you just kill it then since its life is STILL going to be a struggle?

If the doctors concluded early on that the child would most likely be born with disfigurement or severe mental ailments, then I would go ahead and terminate the pregnancy. I wouldn't deliberately bring a child into the world whose life was going to be harder than most.

And yet I gotta wonder, all those kids you see on the St. Jude's ads on TV, so many of them BORN with cancers, I can't really see all of those parents being told beforehand that that was going to happen and they went ahead with it anyway.

CatEyes10736 wrote:

What if the obstetrician was correct in their conclusion, strongly advised a medical abortion...but she decides to chance it and winds up giving birth to a severely disabled child? Whose day to day life will be constantly physically painful. It's fine to be skeptical of one doctors prognosis and to get a second, third or fourth opinions. Heaven forbid, if I ever became preggers and was given a grim outlook of my child's fate, I would get another opinion. But if the multiple opinions all concluded the same thing, then I would abort. I think it's cruel to bring a child into the world knowing beforehand that his or condition will be grim and that their daily life will ALWAYS be a struggle. You have to take into consideration what all of their special needs will be, medical treatments and if your insurance will cover it, their schooling, how well they will or won't be able to function in society and who'd take care of them if something were to happen to you.

So you kill them? Again, sounds like conditional love to me. You'll only have them if they meet your standards.

It's funny, when people say such and such kind of people's lives aren't worth living because it's full of so much trouble and difficulty and pain, that's usually the healthy people who don't have to live with those disabilities talking.

But you take the people who don't have perfect bodies or perfect lives, take your pick of them: midgets who suffer health problems on account of being so severely short, disabled people who can't use their legs, people who don't have legs, people who don't have arms and have to use their feet for everything, you take any kind of extreme problem a person could be born with and look at them in their adult years when they get there, and to them, life is good and they were not born mistakes, just different, or special. So if the people who are actually doing the suffering think life is still worthwhile when you're not born with a clean bill of health, are the ones who say it's no life for them to have REALLY thinking about the person being born, or about all the trouble THEY'LL be going through taking care of them? It makes you wonder.

Supernova wrote:

It's funny, when people say such and such kind of people's lives aren't worth living because it's full of so much trouble and difficulty and pain, that's usually the healthy people who don't have to live with those disabilities talking.

But you take the people who don't have perfect bodies or perfect lives, take your pick of them: midgets who suffer health problems on account of being so severely short, disabled people who can't use their legs, people who don't have legs, people who don't have arms and have to use their feet for everything, you take any kind of extreme problem a person could be born with and look at them in their adult years when they get there, and to them, life is good and they were not born mistakes, just different, or special. So if the people who are actually doing the suffering think life is still worthwhile when you're not born with a clean bill of health, are the ones who say it's no life for them to have REALLY thinking about the person being born, or about all the trouble THEY'LL be going through taking care of them? It makes you wonder.

I think it's the latter. Eugenics is dangerous stuff and I really don't like it. People deserve a chance to live and shouldn't be snuffed out cause they are imperfect.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

So you kill them? Again, sounds like conditional love to me. You'll only have them if they meet your standards.

For crying out loud, FM. You and your "kill" declarations. Would you not euthanize a dog that's been hit by a car, knowing (and seeing) the physical torture he's in? In this case, the fetus hasn't even developed into a full person yet, so there is no "killing" happening here. Yes, I would terminate a pregnancy early on if the doctors concluded that the child would have severe mental and physical disorder that would make his or her life a constant and painful battle. Absolutely, 100%.

BTW, Abortion is not murder.

CatEyes10736 wrote:

BTW, Abortion is not murder.

To what extent? What about late term abortions at 8 or 9 months? Babies are born earlier than that, so they're old enough to be born but they still don't count as a person or a life or even as capable of feeling pain?

CatEyes10736 wrote:

For crying out loud, FM. You and your "kill" declarations. Would you not euthanize a dog that's been hit by a car, knowing (and seeing) the physical torture he's in? In this case, the fetus hasn't even developed into a full person yet, so there is no "killing" happening here. Yes, I would terminate a pregnancy early on if the doctors concluded that the child would have severe mental and physical disorder that would make his or her life a constant and painful battle. Absolutely, 100%.

BTW, Abortion is not murder.

1. I think we have to distinguish between humans and the rest of the animals. Anybody who tries to argue that there is no difference isn't living in our world. But since YOU brought up the dog getting hit by a car, should handicapped people who suffer painful injuries be put down now? Sounds like eugenics hiding behind the mask of mercy to me.

2. You say it's not killing, I say it is. Many abortions do NOT take place early on, especially when it's done cause they think something will be wrong.

These "kill" "declarations" are just reality. I mean I could easily say you'd be making a "kill declaration" if I you told me not to go shoot up a bank. The fetus IS a full person. Even the term fetus concedes that. And the more technology advances, the more this is becoming an unavoidable truth.

And sorry, but the guise of avoiding "a painful battle" is a copout. One could use the same logic to kill an infant. There's no way I see around the fact that killing a child who MAY(not even definitely) become handicapped is just conditional love plain and simple. And I agree that it's more about what YOU can't handle than what the child can't handle.

And besides, doctors can't even make accurate diagnoses on full grown people who are right in front of them. HOW can we really, honestly believe that they know exactly what they're talking about when it's in regards to an unborn baby?

Anything involving doctors is a gamble. One guy on the news once went undercover, went to 10 different dentists, and every single one of them had a different diagnosis of what was wrong with his teeth but ALL of them said he needed very expensive work. And are we really expected to believe doctors of other specialties don't do the same thing?

^^^^I would think when the choice is terminating your child, a doctor's word just isn't enough.

Again, it all comes to down to how much you love your child. Do you love them to let them live despite their flaws? Killing them to spare them pain isn't merciful, and it certainly isn't loving.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

1. I think we have to distinguish between humans and the rest of the animals. Anybody who tries to argue that there is no difference isn't living in our world. But since YOU brought up the dog getting hit by a car, should handicapped people who suffer painful injuries be put down now? Sounds like eugenics hiding behind the mask of mercy to me.

It all depends. Is this person handicap due to accident, and is now wheelchair bound? If so, then no. They can still live a long, productive, adjusted life and can care and make rationale decisions for themselves, despite their disability. However, if someone is involved in a near fatal accident, is knocked unconscious, suffers brain damage and the doctors conclude that they will never awaken or be able to live without the machine, then I absolutely would opt to let them die than to let them go years more in a vegetative state. Yes sir.

Quote :

2. You say it's not killing, I say it is. Many abortions do NOT take place early on, especially when it's done cause they think something will be wrong.

These "kill" "declarations" are just reality. I mean I could easily say you'd be making a "kill declaration" if I you told me not to go shoot up a bank. The fetus IS a full person. Even the term fetus concedes that. And the more technology advances, the more this is becoming an unavoidable truth.

And sorry, but the guise of avoiding "a painful battle" is a copout. One could use the same logic to kill an infant. There's no way I see around the fact that killing a child who MAY(not even definitely) become handicapped is just conditional love plain and simple. And I agree that it's more about what YOU can't handle than what the child can't handle.

Whatever Forgiveness. Until a fetus is developed enough to be able to survive (or at least continue to develope) outside his mothers womb, then it isn't a full person yet. Talking to you is like talking to a closed door. As much as you argue against abortion and contraceptives, something tells me that you'd be the first to condemn a welfare mother.

However, what PROOF is there that a baby who isn't fully or near fully developed can't feel pain? I mean if you take a person who can't move and can't talk and jab pins into him, just because he makes no indication he's in pain doesn't mean he doesn't feel anything, does it? And unless ANYBODY who was one of those who survived an abortion can actually remember that far back, nobody can say for certain they don't feel pain.

^^^^^ Okay, so when do you think a fetus is actually sentient?

CatEyes10736 wrote:

It all depends. Is this person handicap due to accident, and is now wheelchair bound? If so, then no. They can still live a long, productive, adjusted life and can care and make rationale decisions for themselves, despite their disability. However, if someone is involved in a near fatal accident, is knocked unconscious, suffers brain damage and the doctors conclude that they will never awaken or be able to live without the machine, then I absolutely would opt to let them die than to let them go years more in a vegetative state. Yes sir.



Whatever Forgiveness. Until a fetus is developed enough to be able to survive (or at least continue to develope) outside his mothers womb, then it isn't a full person yet. Talking to you is like talking to a closed door. As much as you argue against abortion and contraceptives, something tells me that you'd be the first to condemn a welfare mother.

Well, doctors have continuously been wrong about "vegetative" states in the past. I think it's easy to let people die when they are not you.

Something tells you? Well I am against welfare because it is sorely abused.(ie Octomom) I'd understand if the woman was on it for honest reasons and was actually trying to better herself. Talking to ME is like talking to a closed door? *holds up mirror And it IS a full person at all times in the womb. And guess what, many abortions are performed long after the fetus(which means little one) is viable. Personhood isn't contingent on usefulness. People are people because they are people.