Is it ethical to "save" a baby even if it can never lead a normal life?

[Tessu]

ITT: Babies.

Now I'm not talking about abortion or anything. That's a different topic. I shall have none of that here. This is the kind of scenario I mean:

Imagine this- a woman is pregnant with a child, and the baby while in her womb seems to be in good condition. Then, all of a sudden, when she's giving birth, something goes terribly wrong with the baby and it could die.

The doctors find out they can save it and let it live, but in doing so, the baby would never be able to support itself. It might have to wear a diaper its whole life, or might never be able to feed itself, or it might be disfigured to a point beyond being able to plain function.

Is it ethical to let the child live, even if it will be misreble its whole life--and will be totally aware it's not like everyone else and its life sucks?

I, personally, have an unknown standpoint on this. I mean, I don't think it's fair to the kid if they have to live like that. But at the same time, medical science could make some drastic improvement that could've allowed the baby to live normally, and by allowing it to die you completely remove its chances of such an opportunity.

Deescuss.

[Shadowpawn]

This topic is pretty much about abortion, only after birth. I don't think it's right to let the baby die if you know you can save it. Even if it would never be normal a life isn't something you just throw away.

[EphekZ]

In my opinion, I don't think it's ethical at all. Speaking in pretty much emotionless terms, the child will be a liability for the rest of its life. Only people who will actually care for it, will be its parents, and I know there's the only parental love, but no one wants that messed up kid. You don't get the same satisfaction as having a normal one, and watching it grow into a fine adult.

edit: You also mentioned it will be aware of its status. I don't think I'd want to live knowing that I'm a liability to everyone.

edit2: Out of curiosity, what inspired you to make this topic?

[KodiaX987]

Disfigured but in most possession of its means? Keep. We might have the next Stephen Hawking here.

First person to tell me Stephen Hawking wasn't born this way gets my foot up the ass. You get the idea. Your keyboard's got better uses than being nitpick mediums.

Looking all right but obviously retarded? Let go. The soul can't function without a proper mental steering wheel; better let it move on and pick up another baby to spawn into.

[pikachief]

You know my brother has autism and they told my mother that he'd never be able to read.

Now he is past highschool and in a normal college along with everyone else ^^

I know its not the same, but even if they tell you that your child will never live a normal life, its your child and as a Mother its your job to love it and care for it no matter what happens or what has already happened. Give it a chance to live a normal life and not just take what a doctor says and just think, oh well i guess its jsut not gonna work!

NO! your gonna try your best to Care for and bring up this new life in the world because its your baby. you should do everything in your power u can to give it a happy long life.

thats all i got. its your baby so take the responsibility and raise it into a good human being like you should.

[BlackRose]

Problem with a fate worse than death is that we don't really know how bad death is.

Sure, throwing away a life is bad wrong evil whatever, but at what point does it cease to become a life? For me (go ahead and hate me if you please) it's not far below a fully-functional human being. Some people do a damn hell of a lot despite being given very little, but that's not considering their position. Is Stephen Hawking happy with who he is? How do you balance the potential value of what a person can do for themselves against what they can give to (or take from) other people?


(Ah, hooray for answering questions with questions...)

[The_Gio]

Well a lot of factors come into the question, for example, there have been thousands of cases where doctors tell people they will never function in society correctly, but have been proven very wrong. One of my personal heroes, Joey Ramone, was told that he would never be able to make anything of himself because of his OCD, yet, he was able to become a musical inspiration to a lot through his band the Ramones. But on the other hand, if the baby will not be able to even take care of himself, then its just not only going to make the baby suffer in its future life,but is going to be a burden to the ones around it, even if they deny it. In the end, its mostly a personal choice, and it all depends on how you look at things.

I know it sounds ruthless...but really im trying to be neutral about it, cuz on one hand it could be something blown out of preportion, while on the other, it can be taken too lightly or is done for the wrong reasons. Nothing should be done for anyone out of pity, at least thats my opinion

[Blitzkommando]

How many people have been told they would never walk again only to use that as a platform to prove they can do it? It's very difficult at such an early stage of life to even attempt to guess how the child would grow up. If it were me, I simply could not do that to my own child even considering if the child may grow up handicapped.

[Broodstar1337]

I personally think it's child abuse.

[Seority]

Run Forest! Run!
I'd love to have a 100% normal child and not have to worry about he/she needing special help with things, Lord knows that I've been picked on w/o those type of deformities/issues. If it's something major like the kid will have sever down syndrome/has cancer (I duno)/etc then I'd probably put it to sleep or whatever, but if it still has the ability to live a decent life, I can't deny it then.
I duno, maybe I sound cruel, but it's cruel to keep something alive then rather kill it to end it's suffering. It's a tough decision to make, but I'll try to prevent it at all cost whenever I'm pregnant.

[drizzle]

Suffering? Who are you that you can decide who lives and who dies?

Most disabled people are perfectly happy to be alive. I have a brother who will never be able to take care of himself. I have never once heard him complain about his life.

[Aisha379]

Suffering? Who are you that you can decide who lives and who dies?

QFFT.

If you haven't noticed, most people with mental handicaps are the happiest people you will ever see. At my old church, this woman adopted her nephew (think it was nephew?) who was mentally retarded, because his mom didn't want him, the doctors said he'd never walk and he'd be dead before he turned 3.

I think hes about 25 now. Anyway, they love him, they are happy to take care of him, he loves them, he is happy, should he have been "put to sleep" (as Seority so elegantly put it) because he wasn't "contributing to society" or "not happy"?

First off, on the subject of "happiness" and "normal life", I guess we should go around and kill off anyone with depression, people who have lost their limbs, extremely overweight people, etc.

Wait, what? Thats not fair? Whats the difference then? Oh, because its a newborn, who hasn't experienced life yet, its fine, but take that life away from someone who's already half-lived it without giving them a choice isn't "fair"? But they aren't normal! They aren't happy!


Next subject - "contributing to society"...lawl. This makes my bullshittery radar explode.

First off, I'm more than positive that just a few people on this forum don't have a job and still live with their parents *cough*.

Thats not contributing.

Secondly, some of you may have jobs! Where do you work? Subway? Radioshack? Hot Topic? Well, I hate to break it to you, but a mediocre cashier job in a place such as those is hardly contributing to society.

Hey, I know how we can all contribute to society, lets all take a cue from 1950's Russia! We'll build factories all over America, and everyone of working age will be assigned a job to work 15 hours a day, have all their luxury possessions sold and have a specific apartment picked out for them (no more owning land - thats not productive to keep it for yourself!), then, we'll make everyone work in assembly lines in these factories, even the elderly, and if someone gets sick or collapses, we shoot them! (The sick are not productive, and who wants to take the time and money to medically care for them? Better to just let them go.)


In short - Not contributing to society is a fucking huge piece of bullshit, and is the only thing that dwarfs peoples insensitivity and hypocritical statements in this thread.

[Solstis]

People that are not productive to society: Insular nerds.

Society meaning, basically community, people that make other people happy contribute the most. A happy society is one that does not go around killing other societies. At least not without apologizing afterwards. Designing a new iPod has more to do with making cash than making people happy.

Thanks for calling bullshit, Aisha.

[amtalx]

All this question is asking is if euthanasia is ok.

[Aisha379]

All this question is asking is if euthanasia is ok.

Not really, since its specifically to newborns. We're not talking about adults in assisted suicide or terminally ill people, just kids.

Basically, Shadowpawn was right when he said this was little more than an abortion thread in disguise.

[Innominate]

I'm sorry, I've read other threads Tessu has started and I'm starting to wonder if she's intolerant of anyone who is different from what society deems as normal. There was the lady at the store with the bumps on her body, her very overweight sister (gotta wonder how accurate Tessu's stories are about who starts what) and now this. I'm starting to see a pattern. Anyone else?

[Aisha379]

Can't say it didn't at least cross my mind.

[The_Gio]

QFFT.

If you haven't noticed, most people with mental handicaps are the happiest people you will ever see. At my old church, this woman adopted her nephew (think it was nephew?) who was mentally retarded, because his mom didn't want him, the doctors said he'd never walk and he'd be dead before he turned 3.

I think hes about 25 now. Anyway, they love him, they are happy to take care of him, he loves them, he is happy, should he have been "put to sleep" (as Seority so elegantly put it) because he wasn't "contributing to society" or "not happy"?

First off, on the subject of "happiness" and "normal life", I guess we should go around and kill off anyone with depression, people who have lost their limbs, extremely overweight people, etc.

Wait, what? Thats not fair? Whats the difference then? Oh, because its a newborn, who hasn't experienced life yet, its fine, but take that life away from someone who's already half-lived it without giving them a choice isn't "fair"? But they aren't normal! They aren't happy!


Next subject - "contributing to society"...lawl. This makes my bullshittery radar explode.

First off, I'm more than positive that just a few people on this forum don't have a job and still live with their parents *cough*.

Thats not contributing.

Secondly, some of you may have jobs! Where do you work? Subway? Radioshack? Hot Topic? Well, I hate to break it to you, but a mediocre cashier job in a place such as those is hardly contributing to society.

Hey, I know how we can all contribute to society, lets all take a cue from 1950's Russia! We'll build factories all over America, and everyone of working age will be assigned a job to work 15 hours a day, have all their luxury possessions sold and have a specific apartment picked out for them (no more owning land - thats not productive to keep it for yourself!), then, we'll make everyone work in assembly lines in these factories, even the elderly, and if someone gets sick or collapses, we shoot them! (The sick are not productive, and who wants to take the time and money to medically care for them? Better to just let them go.)


In short - Not contributing to society is a fucking huge piece of bullshit, and is the only thing that dwarfs peoples insensitivity and hypocritical statements in this thread.

ok...sounds reasonable,but you seem to think contributing to society is being able to take care of yourself, thats not contributing...thats...taking care of yourself...also, the people who are overweight,depression, people who have lost their limbs,was pretty much their own decisions in life that led to that, meaning, if they had a little bit more self control, or common sense, or hell even if it wasnt their fault they lost their limbs, how the hell did they lose them? and, that means at one point, they were fully functional so they know how normal life works and they know they have to make up for it. As for the fact that most mentally handicapped people are happy, yeah thats true, but why? because they dont know about how life is. You know like the saying ignorance is bliss. Of course theyre gonna be happy, because theyll never have a reason to be sad.

what im saying is, i think your taking the word death, or put to sleep as something you have to avoid no matter what the outcome is, truth is, some of us are just bound to go and some of us are just to stay. The problem with our society nowadays is no one appreciates their life anymore, their too busy abusing it by using drugs and alcohol,thinking their the shit because of the things they do. Which in turn makes some of us angry cuz then theres situations like this where someones struggling to survive while others are mistreating.

thats why i said, it all matters on how you look at things,everyones gonna have something to say, but who are we to speak when were not mentally handicapped ourselves,so we...really...in the end have,no right to speak of this like we know what they go thru and argue over it.

by the way,if this doesnt make any sense its cuz i did it in a rush cuz i have to get back to school lol so i mightve skipped or jumbled up my words

[Nitro Vordex]

I'm sorry, I've read other threads Tessu has started and I'm starting to wonder if she's intolerant of anyone who is different from what society deems as normal.Oh wow, here we go.
There was the lady at the store with the bumps on her body,Frankly, I'm interested in this. Tessu even said she actually wanted to know what it was, even if it disturbed her. It's human nature to have fear of the unknown.
her very overweight sister (gotta wonder how accurate Tessu's stories are about who starts what)Her sister is a bitch, the fat part just happened to be in it.
and now this. I'm starting to see a pattern. Anyone else?A pattern? What, we can't complain on the internet and expect everyone to believe it? :wacko:
The bumps on the body. You can't tell me you wouldn't wonder, be nervous, be scared or something to that effect if you had no idea what it was. You quite probably would have done one or more or something I even didn't mention(and don't say neutral, because you're lying) had you seen something such like that.

A few of the members of this site have "witnessed", if you will, how her sister is. Not in the worst of times mind you, but they've heard enough.

This topic is a simple discussion about whether an infant should be "put down" if it were to be impared for its life. As obscene as that sounds, that's basically what it is. (Though, I do have to agree, it still sounds something like abortion, just from a different angle[See:Reasonable cause].)

On topic opinion: I think a child should be able to live, regardless of disability. If the kid hates his life and wants to die...well, in today's society, that'd be wrong to encourage someone to kill themselves. But in a sense, if you can't say who will live, why say who can die? If someone wants to die...I say let 'em.

[seph_monkey]

personally depending on how the kid will be born then i would be able to decide

first of all you need to know that there is a difference between living and surviving which honestly i learned the hard way

like if the baby is born in a way that it is suffering every day and will live a life like this, i cant say if that person would WANT to live. but i would perfer to let the kid die, reason why is because yeah it is unethical to kill a baby. but if i wanna keep a baby alive to suffer just because it pleases my concience i personally wouldnt be able to live with my self. not saying that killing this person will make me feel any better.

if the baby is born with something like COD and wouldnt be able to function in society i dont think that is a gewd enough reason because i personally know people with mental problems (including myself) that dont really need to function in society to live, i know that sounds weird but yeah.

i cant say for sure no matter wat the decision to me its just fucked, but if a decision is to be made i would think about it.

my condition i just have extreme halusanacions (i forgot the medical term also i cant spell >_>) basically i see things that arnt really there and i can feel them and at night i get them pretty bad, but yeah it is a problem but not so much as one to make me unfunctional.

i dunno im in a hurry so i didnt get to talk about wat i wanted to talk about but yeah

[Tessu]

I'm sorry, I've read other threads Tessu has started and I'm starting to wonder if she's intolerant of anyone who is different from what society deems as normal. There was the lady at the store with the bumps on her body, her very overweight sister (gotta wonder how accurate Tessu's stories are about who starts what) and now this. I'm starting to see a pattern. Anyone else?

EDIT: Wait, nevermind. I get it, you're pretty funny.



edit2: Out of curiosity, what inspired you to make this topic?

A discussion with my mom.

[leblancdiaz]

no comment not touching this subject with a 60 foot pole

[Kylie]

No one knows what happens after someone dies. You can say what you think happens based on a theory or faith, but no one knows if it's better to die than to live in that state. Therefore, I think it's best to have what must happen happen. It is difficult though because what would happen without medical intervention would be death, so... Meh, I just hope I never find myself in that kind of situation.

[Toadthroat]

In short, no its not ethical to kill a baby even if it couldn't lead a 'normal' life.
As other people have said, there have been plenty of success stories of people who have overcome their deformities or whatever you wanna call it and have done great things.
Hellen Keller, Stephen Hawking, Stevie Wonder, Beethoven, etc. etc.
Those might not be the best examples, but you get the point.

[Tensu of the moon]

Speaking as someone who qualifies at least partially as "messed up", no, it is not ethical. As much as my life sucks, I enjoy living it. It is not your life you are throwing away, it is someone else's. And just because you would not want to live that way dose not mean they wouldn't. You would not want someone else deciding if your life is worth living. So why would you make that decision for someone else, your own child, no less?

[Sinue_v2]

No, it's not ethical. What you describe is tantamount to eugenics under the guise of alleviating the suffering of the handicapped before they are conscious and developed enough to make the decision for themselves. Not only is it wrong, and inherently evil in it's own right, but we've already seen where this line of thinking has gotten humanity in the past.


The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ~ Charles Darwin

[Nai_Calus]

Secondly, some of you may have jobs! Where do you work? Subway? Radioshack? Hot Topic? Well, I hate to break it to you, but a mediocre cashier job in a place such as those is hardly contributing to society.


Yeah, god knows all those worthless people in retail and service industry jobs should just go fuck themselves and get a REAL job.

Oh but then who the fuck is going to sell you your goddamned gegaw at Radio Shack to complete your super-special awesome invention that's going to save the world? Oh fuck, you've got diabetes and your blood sugar is crashing, gotta go get something to eat to get it back u- Well fuck, no cashiers or stockers or other worthless jobs that don't contribute to society at all around, guess you're shit out of luck.

I'm sorry, but your sheer ludicrous arrogance makes me disregard the rest of your post even more than I would have otherwise.

So what is a worthwhile job that contributes to society, may I ask, since apparently anything that actually allows society to fucking FUNCTION doesn't contribute. Secretary for some fat jackass in a suit who's too stupid and busy with his golf game to function without you? Yeah that's a real help to the world at large.

[drizzle]

No one knows what happens after someone dies.

They get buried, usually.


*runs*

[ShinMaruku]

Suffering? Who are you that you can decide who lives and who dies?


You would be surprised at what people do.

[Aisha379]

Yeah, god knows all those worthless people in retail and service industry jobs should just go fuck themselves and get a REAL job.

Oh but then who the fuck is going to sell you your goddamned gegaw at Radio Shack to complete your super-special awesome invention that's going to save the world? Oh fuck, you've got diabetes and your blood sugar is crashing, gotta go get something to eat to get it back u- Well fuck, no cashiers or stockers or other worthless jobs that don't contribute to society at all around, guess you're shit out of luck.

I'm sorry, but your sheer ludicrous arrogance makes me disregard the rest of your post even more than I would have otherwise.

So what is a worthwhile job that contributes to society, may I ask, since apparently anything that actually allows society to fucking FUNCTION doesn't contribute. Secretary for some fat jackass in a suit who's too stupid and busy with his golf game to function without you? Yeah that's a real help to the world at large.


Way to go at missing the point entirely.

I was just giving examples, I have nothing against those stores personally (though Subway does take too long to make stuff D= ).


The point was simply that person X cannot say someone should be put to death for being unable to contribute to society, and then run to a lame-ass, barely useful job of comfort.

Also, never said expensive secretaries for CEO's was contributing - infact, I was speaking on how "Contributing to society" itself was bullshit, but this clearly flew over your head and you took it as some personal attack on a specific class of workers, which was not my intention.

[Sidney]

You know, I'm in the process of being diagnosed with a chronic disease. It will affect my life in a lot of adverse ways. But that doesn't mean my parents should have "put me out of my misery" when I was a child because I'm going to have to live with a chronic disease. I rather enjoy being alive, and I'd rather not have someone decide whether I deserve to live or not because I won't have the joys of being "normal".


Run Forest! Run!
I'd love to have a 100% normal child and not have to worry about he/she needing special help with things, Lord knows that I've been picked on w/o those type of deformities/issues. If it's something major like the kid will have sever down syndrome/has cancer (I duno)/etc then I'd probably put it to sleep or whatever, but if it still has the ability to live a decent life, I can't deny it then.
I duno, maybe I sound cruel, but it's cruel to keep something alive then rather kill it to end it's suffering. It's a tough decision to make, but I'll try to prevent it at all cost whenever I'm pregnant.

Wow, I am speechless. You do know that cancer is, you know, treatable? And that plenty of people live happy lives with Down Syndrome? My dad had cancer in his lifetime, I guess my grandmother should have "put him to sleep" :roll: I guess my great-grandfather should have been "put to sleep" so he could avoid the pains of having multiple myeloma. By the way, euthanasia is illegal.

[CelestialBlade]

Let nature run its course. If we should be killing those who "won't live a normal life" then we may as well start killing those born into poverty, killing any child who might have a remote chance of being hungry at some point in their lives (time to start nuking those third-world countries entirely!), and everyone who claims to or actually has ADD is getting a bullet in the head.

Why are some people always trying to "save the world?" You can't change what you're born into, and you know what? I admire people that live with chronic illnesses/conditions. They're strong and successful in their own ways. Who wants a sterile world where everyone's engineered to be the same? It's not our right.

[Seority]

Hmm yes Soub.
My kid, my ideals. Sorry not everyone agrees with you, nor do I think everyone SHOULD agree with me. Too each his own or her own since you care that much. :rolls:

Some* cancer is treatable. My grandma died from it so, I should know. :/
I'm sure that some people do live their lives with down syndrome, but it's the same thing as having a deaf child and you're not deaf. That's a totally different world and life that you'd never understand unless you are acctually deaf or have down syndrome.

To each his own. I like how you two think I'm going to go shoot people who are starving/poor/sick to "improve" our society... It's my child, and my decision with his/her life. As far as everyone else and their children, it's up to them.

[Syl]

Reading through a couple of these posts...

I don't even know where to start :nono:

[KodiaX987]

ITT: OMG U BABY MURDERERS U ALL DESERV 2 DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE!!!!!!!111!!11!!1111

[thunder-ray]

Hmm yes Soub.
My kid, my ideals. Sorry not everyone agrees with you, nor do I think everyone SHOULD agree with me. Too each his own or her own since you care that much. :rolls:

Some* cancer is treatable. My grandma died from it so, I should know. :/
I'm sure that some people do live their lives with down syndrome, but it's the same thing as having a deaf child and you're not deaf. That's a totally different world and life that you'd never understand unless you are acctually deaf or have down syndrome.

To each his own. I like how you two think I'm going to go shoot people who are starving/poor/sick to "improve" our society... It's my child, and my decision with his/her life. As far as everyone else and their children, it's up to them.Wow and I found your last post to be disturbing. This new post is even worse.

[Sidney]

^ I feel exactly the same way. I can't even dignify what she says with a response because it's that disturbing. I guess all I can say to Seority is, once more: Euthanasia is illegal. Go ahead and do what you want with your child's life if they happen to have a disease/condition/deformity, just be sure you like the idea of prison.

[Weeaboolits]

Hmm yes Soub.
My kid, my ideals. Sorry not everyone agrees with you, nor do I think everyone SHOULD agree with me. Too each his own or her own since you care that much. :rolls:

Some* cancer is treatable. My grandma died from it so, I should know. :/
I'm sure that some people do live their lives with down syndrome, but it's the same thing as having a deaf child and you're not deaf. That's a totally different world and life that you'd never understand unless you are acctually deaf or have down syndrome.

To each his own. I like how you two think I'm going to go shoot people who are starving/poor/sick to "improve" our society... It's my child, and my decision with his/her life. As far as everyone else and their children, it's up to them.Once it's born, it's infanticide.

[Tensu of the moon]

Hmm yes Soub.
My kid, my ideals. Sorry not everyone agrees with you, nor do I think everyone SHOULD agree with me. Too each his own or her own since you care that much. :rolls:

Some* cancer is treatable. My grandma died from it so, I should know. :/
I'm sure that some people do live their lives with down syndrome, but it's the same thing as having a deaf child and you're not deaf. That's a totally different world and life that you'd never understand unless you are acctually deaf or have down syndrome.

To each his own. I like how you two think I'm going to go shoot people who are starving/poor/sick to "improve" our society... It's my child, and my decision with his/her life. As far as everyone else and their children, it's up to them.

so you're saying you would kill your own child just because you can't relate to it?

I'm sure as hell glad my parents aren't as heartless as you.

who do you think you are, deciding wether or not people deserve to live?

[Tessu]

Careful, there's a fine line between disagreeing with someone and personally attacking them.

Even if you strongly disagree.

[Aisha379]

I fail to see the problem in occasionally implementing both~

[DreXxiN]

You all won't put suffering babies to sleep, but will put suffering dogs to sleep, el oh el Human elitism much.

Anywho, Yeah, cancer is treatable..and most of the treatment such as chemo sucks. I hated watching my grandpa and father suffer before they passed away on chemo. My grandpa and Dad both said they just wanted to be taken away. I think it's almost selfish for people to keep something they love dearly alive if they are going to watch it suffer.


Euthanasia is illegal. So is p2p networking with copyrighted files.

Don't bring law into this please? lol

I agree that if something is retarded or has capabilities to live a happy life, it's wrong to "put them to sleep". but if it's just going to be a vegetable that can't think or control it's own actions, well god damnit that sucks o_O.

You guys who think those ideologies are unbearably sick or twisted really have missed out on some gruesome shit in your lifetime, lol.


who do you think you are, deciding wether or not people deserve to live?

HOOOLD THE FUCKING PHONE BUDDY! LMAO

Who said she was deciding on PRIVELAGES? This had nothing to do with deserving to live or not, it's about status of life.

Personally myself, if it's already living, I wouldn't kill it if it was my child, but you guys who are opposing it are just being completely absent minding and skimming through posts! Oy...Typical I suppose.

[Shadowpawn]

Who said she was deciding on PRIVELAGES? This had nothing to do with deserving to live or not, it's about status of life.



But that's pretty much what this topic is about, whatever something should die or not because it's not "normal". I think deciding to end a life is pretty much denying a privilege to live. I wonder how people will react when stem cell research starts allowing people to identify genetic defects before a person is born. Will it suddenly be okay to terminate the pregnancy because it hasn't been born, all for the sake of having a normal kid?

Seems vain to me.

[CelestialBlade]

Anywho, Yeah, cancer is treatable..and most of the treatment such as chemo sucks. I hated watching my grandpa and father suffer before they passed away on chemo. My grandpa and Dad both said they just wanted to be taken away. I think it's almost selfish for people to keep something they love dearly alive if they are going to watch it suffer.
The "pulling the plug" debate is entirely different from what this topic is intending to discuss, which is whether or not you should have a say in killing a baby just because you know it won't grow up to be "normal." If it has some horrible affliction where it's currently suffering and there's no way it's going to get better with today's technology? Yes, I might consider putting it to sleep, for its sake. But diseases/conditions you can live with, even if it's not normal? That's part of life, seeing how you deal with different situations and different environments. Take away the specifics, and everyone's life is nothing more than battling their own individual challenges. We're all still the same, no matter if one person has Down Syndrome versus another person with cancer.

I watched my mom struggle against rheumatoid arthritis until her body simply could not fight anymore and it claimed her. I watched diabetes slowly break down my dad until it eventually claimed him. But would I ever, EVER consider putting either of them to sleep just because they were suffering? Hell no. The reason they fought on is because they wanted to keep living, not just for them but for myself, my brother, and all those who loved them. Why fight an ultimately futile battle if you don't want to live that badly? You don't hear about very many people with chronic illnesses wanting to go and kill themselves, versus teenagers who think their hopeless high school fling ending ruined their lives entirely. You want to talk about how beautiful life is, talk to someone who knows they're going to die soon.

And should I have been killed because I was suffering over their losses?

But back to the actual topic of this thread, all we're trying to say is that even if a baby isn't going to grow up to be normal, you're completely robbing it of any chance to live if you choose to "save" it. I'm just sick and tired of all these crusaders wanting to save the world, save the babies, save everything. Let nature and life run its course. People live, people die, people enjoy life, people suffer, it's the way things go. In my opinion, some people get a little too caught up in the whole "It's MY child" idea while completely forgetting the fact that said child is also an individual, and after a certain point, will embark on their own lives. Nobody has any right to rob an individual of an opportunity at life, an opportunity to learn from their own struggles. People that fight chronic illnesses inspire me more and more every day, and help me realize how lucky I am to be me and how happy I am to be alive.

At least, that's the only point I was trying to make. Sorry if anything I said led you to think otherwise, Drex.

[Sinue_v2]

I wonder how people will react when stem cell research starts allowing people to identify genetic defects before a person is born. Will it suddenly be okay to terminate the pregnancy because it has been born all for the sake of having a normal kid?

Seems vain to me.

They've been able to do that for decades now. It's called amniocentesis, and the nature of the procedure means that it has to be done in the early stages of pregnancy or else there's too great a risk of hitting the child with the needle.

I was told that in my state that AFTs were voluntary, but that abortions be required if the AFT turned out to show signs of debilitating mental or physical handicaps - although I doubt this because I haven't found a scrap of evidence for it online. Still... it doesn't change the point that the tests could be preformed and the results known before it's too late for an abortion.

Stem Cell research, and Gene Therapy, on the other hand - wouldn't promote abortion, but would open the possibility for parents to correct developmental or genetic malformations before they become problems. Your suspicion towards medical technology is misplaced in this case.

Although, Gene Therapy and Stem Cell research do open up their own Pandora's box of moral issues. Is it moral or ethical to treat a child with a developmental problem with these technologies, or is it more moral to simply let them be born with whatever malities chance chose them to have? If you could treat a child who would be born deaf so that they could hear like normal children, would you? It may seem like the right thing to do, but many in the deaf community would argue against that and see it as an attack on their culture which they love and take pride in.

[Shadowpawn]

They've been able to do that for decades now. It's called amniocentesis, and the nature of the procedure means that it has to be done in the early stages of pregnancy or else there's too great a risk of hitting the child with the needle.

I was told that in my state that AFTs were voluntary, but that abortions be required if the AFT turned out to show signs of debilitating mental or physical handicaps - although I doubt this because I haven't found a scrap of evidence for it online. Still... it doesn't change the point that the tests could be preformed and the results known before it's too late for an abortion.

Stem Cell research, and Gene Therapy, on the other hand - wouldn't promote abortion, but would open the possibility for parents to correct developmental or genetic malformations before they become problems. Your suspicion towards medical technology is misplaced in this case.

Although, Gene Therapy and Stem Cell research do open up their own Pandora's box of moral issues. Is it moral or ethical to treat a child with a developmental problem with these technologies, or is it more moral to simply let them be born with whatever malities chance chose them to have? If you could treat a child who would be born deaf so that they could hear like normal children, would you? It may seem like the right thing to do, but many in the deaf community would argue against that and see it as an attack on their culture which they love and take pride in.


I had a feeling they were able to do that already, it dawned on me after editing it. As for er "correcting" a person's defects before they are born. I'm a little iffy on that one, I mean, do we even know what side effects we might cause if we alter someone genetic makeup? That could create other problems that were not foreseeable at the time. The idea of altering a person before they are even born strikes me painfully as close to an idea of creating a race of nietzsche "supermen".

It's almost as if we are playing God with human race. Still, I don't see much harm in doing so. I just don't believe it's morally correctly, however it's just as amoral to allow someone to be born with a painfully debilitating disability. For scientist it's a case of being "damned if you, damned if you don't." Either way, the results of genetic research are bound to nudge someone the wrong way.

[Sinue_v2]

Unfortunately, there's really know way to know what the side effects of such treatment are without clinical trials. Genetic modification and stem cell programs in mice are promising, but... it's still a long way off yet. Remember also that gene therapy isn't just restricted to developing fetuses, but can be implemented in full grown adults as well. However, the treatments (if successful) will be much more effective in the developmental stages and likely won't require extended medication to preserve the effects.

As for "playing god", well - what the hell did God expect us to do when he made us in his image and gave us free will, then decided to just up and disappear on us like a deadbeat dad. We began "playing god" the moment we tamed fire and brought light to the darkness, so it's a little late to slow down now. Not to start a theology debate or anything, and I understand we need to exercise caution with new technologies. Especially those that are capable of so fundamentally changing not just the entire world, but ones which will inevitably challenge our very definition of humanity as well. But as the old addage goes, Nothing ventured - Nothing gained. I see the potential gains from this technology to far outstrip the risks. Still, it's a choice we will all have to make as individuals and (moral or not), it's a hard choice we will have to make for our children since they are not capable of making it themselves.

[KodiaX987]

We ain't talking Übersoldat here. We're talking about fixing a bug on a kid, who would not necessarily lead a happy life had this bug not been dealt with.

Parenthesis on DNA and other genetic artificial modifications: let's assume for a minute that the entire human race is composed of intelligent and considerate individuals (har har!) Now, a pregnant woman finds out her kid, because of a genetic defect, will be missing his right arm. You can all agree with me that it would be swell to know of a way to restore this lost arm before the kid's born and hence allow him to have full use of two hands. Similarly, this "playing God" scheme can be used to prevent other obvious medical conditions.

Now for the real world.

Is someone out there gonna use this knowledge and science to create a complete monster? Oh hell yeah. Is some dumbass celebrity gonna spend whatever amount of dollars just to make it so her kid's born with green hair and purple eyes? Totally.

But I'd rather be born with green hair and purple eyes than some missing limbs. The former, I can fix with dye and scissors.

[Shadowpawn]

Fixing a "bug" on a kid is good and all but as I said before you don't know what you could have implemented by doing so. What if him growing an arm causes an instability in his metal capacity and he grows up to be violent sociopath? Was it really worth the trade off?

But as Sinue said early, we don't know what gene therapy can do unless we see results.

[Sinue_v2]

Fixing a "bug" on a kid is good and all but as I said before you don't know what you could have implemented by doing so. What if him growing an arm causes an instability in his metal capacity and he grows up to be violent sociopath? Was it really worth the trade off?

But as Sinue said early, we don't know what gene therapy can do unless we see results.

Well, to put your mind at ease a bit, we're actually getting rather good at figuring out what genes do, what changes in those genes affect other genes, and what those effects will have. Up till now, medicine has always used a very blunt force methodology in which we were basically very advanced herbologists going out in to the field, collecting samples, testing and comparing results from plant and synthesized chemical compounds to see what effects they have. We were just banging things against the wall and seeing what stuck with the least amount of damage. A bit of an oversimplification, but you get my point.

Gene therapy is different. Genes are like a self-executing program, and once you understand that program - you can make clear and definitive changes in that program without risk of unknown side effects because you already know what the results will be before you even do the test. It's reliable and predictable. You aren't trying to blindly emulate the effects of a gene change with the interactions of chemical compounds, you're changing the fundamental programing itself. The problem is we're just not quite on that level of understanding just yet, which is why clinical trials aren't going to go away anytime soon. It will probably happen within our lifetimes though.

[Aisha379]

Now we're getting into what sounds like "designer baby" talk =o

Also, lawl @ Drexxin.



You all won't put suffering babies to sleep, but will put suffering dogs to sleep, el oh el Human elitism much.

What kind of stupid phrase is Human elitism, first off? XD

Secondly, as much as I like animals, you cannot compare the life of one to a human.


Anywho, Yeah, cancer is treatable..and most of the treatment such as chemo sucks. I hated watching my grandpa and father suffer before they passed away on chemo. My grandpa and Dad both said they just wanted to be taken away. I think it's almost selfish for people to keep something they love dearly alive if they are going to watch it suffer.

Personally, I have little problem with Euthanasia, assuming the person gets to choose to use it. My grandfather also died of cancer, he looked really bad, he knew he was going to die and so did everyone in our family, if he wanted to be put to sleep, I would have no problem with that.

However, once again, you cannot compare that to a child being killed before it can even talk, let alone have an opinion on its life and be able to express it.



So is p2p networking with copyrighted files.

OH WOW GREAT COMEBACK LAWL.


What I believe Soubrette means is that, its illegal, so your opinion doesn't really make a freaking difference - a doctor isn't going to help you kill your baby after its been born, no matter if it has one eye and 10 legs - Its illegal.

This also means if you do it yourself, you are going to prison, so you'd be killing one life and ruining your own (much more logical to put the baby up for adoption than do that)



I agree that if something is retarded or has capabilities to live a happy life, it's wrong to "put them to sleep". but if it's just going to be a vegetable that can't think or control it's own actions, well god damnit that sucks o_O.

No one said anything about a vegetative state on life support =S

(Or if they did, and I missed it, thats not the form of deformity everyone has been discussing at least)

In the case of a vegetative state that doesn't look like it can be reversed, I believe its the choice of the family - just like if the same thing happens to an older person in an accident or something. But brain dead is far different.


Who said she was deciding on PRIVELAGES? This had nothing to do with deserving to live or not, it's about status of life.



Personally myself, if it's already living, I wouldn't kill it if it was my child, but you guys who are opposing it are just being completely absent minding and skimming through posts! Oy...Typical I suppose.

No comment.

[Sidney]

Anywho, Yeah, cancer is treatable..and most of the treatment such as chemo sucks. I hated watching my grandpa and father suffer before they passed away on chemo. My grandpa and Dad both said they just wanted to be taken away. I think it's almost selfish for people to keep something they love dearly alive if they are going to watch it suffer.

Chemo is indeed very unpleasant, but people chose to do it because to them, dying is much worse than nausea, fatigue, diarrhea and hair loss. The choice: Do chemo for x amount of time and have the chance to live, or not do it and die? I know what most people would chose. If I had cancer that required chemo, I would do chemo in a hearbeat. I'd fight that cancer until I lack the ability to fight anymore. That's what my father did, and he won. Plenty of people win to cancer, and it's always worth trying to fight it. But as Chels said, this is on a completely different topic entirely. Euthanasia when you make the decision for yourself and euthanasia when someone else makes the decision for you are completely different.




So is p2p networking with copyrighted files.
Don't bring law into this please? lol


You really think that file sharing and euthanasia is an appropriate comparison? You can't compare a torrent file to a human life.



You guys who think those ideologies are unbearably sick or twisted really have missed out on some gruesome shit in your lifetime, lol.
Says you, someone who is healthy. Your perspective changes a lot if you, or someone you love dearly, has been touched by chronic illness, conditions or disease. If you had a chronic illness or disease, you'd understand the outrage. If my parents would have known about my condition when I was a baby, a condition that currently has no cure, and decided "Well, she'll never be happy, there's no cure, let's put her out of her future misery"... I don't even know what to say. Because, sure, I may be ill, sure, my life has a lot of challenges that others will not have to deal with, sure, my life can and probably will be cut shorter than most, but I am still happy, and I still enjoy life. It's not their right to decide for me, whether I will have a "happy life" or not because of my condition. That is subjective, and it's insanely narrow minded if you can only view what a "happy life" is in one way.

Plus, I don't think you know much about my life to make that kind of statement.

Also, I have thoroughly read through all the posts in this thread. Just because someone has a difference of opinion doesn't mean that they didn't read what you wrote.


The "pulling the plug" debate is entirely different from what this topic is intending to discuss, which is whether or not you should have a say in killing a baby just because you know it won't grow up to be "normal." If it has some horrible affliction where it's currently suffering and there's no way it's going to get better with today's technology? Yes, I might consider putting it to sleep, for its sake. But diseases/conditions you can live with, even if it's not normal? That's part of life, seeing how you deal with different situations and different environments. Take away the specifics, and everyone's life is nothing more than battling their own individual challenges. We're all still the same, no matter if one person has Down Syndrome versus another person with cancer.

I watched my mom struggle against rheumatoid arthritis until her body simply could not fight anymore and it claimed her. I watched diabetes slowly break down my dad until it eventually claimed him. But would I ever, EVER consider putting either of them to sleep just because they were suffering? Hell no. The reason they fought on is because they wanted to keep living, not just for them but for myself, my brother, and all those who loved them. Why fight an ultimately futile battle if you don't want to live that badly? You don't hear about very many people with chronic illnesses wanting to go and kill themselves, versus teenagers who think their hopeless high school fling ending ruined their lives entirely. You want to talk about how beautiful life is, talk to someone who knows they're going to die soon.

And should I have been killed because I was suffering over their losses?

But back to the actual topic of this thread, all we're trying to say is that even if a baby isn't going to grow up to be normal, you're completely robbing it of any chance to live if you choose to "save" it. I'm just sick and tired of all these crusaders wanting to save the world, save the babies, save everything. Let nature and life run its course. People live, people die, people enjoy life, people suffer, it's the way things go. In my opinion, some people get a little too caught up in the whole "It's MY child" idea while completely forgetting the fact that said child is also an individual, and after a certain point, will embark on their own lives. Nobody has any right to rob an individual of an opportunity at life, an opportunity to learn from their own struggles. People that fight chronic illnesses inspire me more and more every day, and help me realize how lucky I am to be me and how happy I am to be alive.

At least, that's the only point I was trying to make. Sorry if anything I said led you to think otherwise, Drex.

I agree with every word of this! Aisha's post as well.

As for stem cell research, I have a very biased view, because it would obviously benefit me, so... :lol:

[CelestialBlade]

If you want to actually help your child in the future instead of throwing your arms in the air and saying WELL LET'S KILL THEM is to save the blood in the baby's umbilical cord. This is a practice that surprisingly few people know about--the blood cells in the umbilical cord can actually do many of the same things stem cells do, and there's no moral drama over it. All you have to do is talk to your doctor about it and your child's umbilical blood can be saved and used if the need arises. It's amazing what kind of chronic illnesses this has the capability to prevent/cure.

That's how you care for a suffering child, not denying them any chance at life.

And pretty much agreed with Aisha and Soubie here, especially Sou because she's living proof that life is worth giving a chance, no matter what your condition is.

[DreXxiN]

Just because I'm healthy doesn't mean I've witnessed really sick stuff. My stepdad's side is a very large Mexican family with many sickly people, and many too obese to do basic human activity.

I didn't mean to offend anyone with my standpoint, and I'm sorry I missed the point on the whole "Illegalness". My point was that the law hardly stopped many things before, but now I know you were trying to explain that the effort to try to do so is futile anyway.

Either way, I personally would not do it, I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I didn't know the extremities you all were speaking of. As I said, disabilities should not qualify someone for death. I have a pretty bad case of Learning Disabilities and OCD about a couple of things, as well as asthma and severe allergies. Hard as some people have it? Hell no, but I'll tell you what, it makes me appreciate a day of perfect breathing and not coughing my lungs out a LOT more.

So as I stated, I apologize if I gave anyone the wrong idea, I was basically just explaining that if I was incapable to enjoy the freedom of life, and would have to be in constant care of others, I'd rather be dead.

Also again, right back at you guys, don't claim others are sick for difference of opinion, because you might be assuming the worst of them as well.

To summarize though, I guess I might have been tired or something, and maybe I did go off topic, but I really meant that people who have experienced life and don't enjoy it should have the choice to put themselves to sleep, and "Saving" them is selfish if they want to go from their misery.

[Seority]

O _ O
You people just looove to take things to the exrtemities...
1) I ment if you could know about your childs illnesses BEFORE they were born, and then having the choice of an abortion or not. I would not kill my child unless I was sure that it's illness was too great to want it to live through. My sister showed signs of being slightly retarded before she was born and guess what? She had a small speech problem in kindergarden and that was all. She's now a normal child.
2) I never ever ever said I'd kill my child if they were deaf. What I'd probably do is give them the coclier (whatever) implant so they could hear. I would not try to learn sign language and have to teach it to my child. As I said, I'm not part of the deaf world, so I wouldn't know it'd be like to be apart of it. As far as a kid with down syndrome or cancer, I can't change, unless my docter says I can. I'm not throwing my children into washing machines, microwaves, or leaving them in running cars. -_-;
3)Thank you DreXxiN for trying to help explain my opinions better, which you did a good job at.

Chelsea: Yes I am kinda being a "Savior of the Pain" when it comes to this. Yes I value life, but which should I do? Just try to forgive myself by letting my child go without his/her say in it, or just it suffer all it's life along with me&the father suffering from seeing it suffer all the time? It's all a question of opinion and mine is to just not let it suffer. There's also the opinion of if when the baby isn't born, is it just tissues or does it have a soul, yadda yadda. As I stated, I value life and once the sperm and egg connect, I believe it's a child.

DreXxiN is right though. This isn't really about law, it's about opinion. My opinion is that I would "put down" my UNBORN child if I knew it's life would be miserable. I'm going to put in this word "Extremeties" to clear up from people thinking I'd "kill" my kid if they didn't have blue eyes. :/

You still don't understand OPINONS soubrette. Not EVERYONE is going to agree with you. NOR IS ANYONE GOING TO AGREE WITH ME. I don't care, it's an opinion.
Taking life is wrong.
Keeping someone alive while they're is suffering, I belive, is a sin (saying it's wrong). (If you're a soilder on the feild, it's curtious to kill a fellow comrade if you see they have a fatal wound so they DONT suffer till they die.)
It's your chioce in the end. NO ONE IS WRONG, NOR RIGHT.

[Weeaboolits]

I can't say I supoport kiling any infant that's already been born, you either decide before its born or you deal with it.

I don't really support late term abortion though either, once the mind is getting properly developed is where it starts to get fuzzy.

[Seority]

Yeah Ronin.
That whole "Tissues or Life" thing is completely an opinion. I don't really remember anything before being 2 at Disney World.
Does that really mean I had "precence of knowledge" before that? I don't know, but I just go with sprem&egg conjoin make a life to keep things simple.
A sperm is a "tissue". An egg is a "tissue". Together, the new "tissue" has potential to become life, while on thier own it's impossible. That's just my "argument/opinion". :?

[Sord]

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

[Sidney]

@Seority: I don't think you understand my posts - I'm staying calm, you seem to be overreacting quite a bit. I'm not saying I'm "OMG IM SO RIGHT!!1", I'm trying to offer some perspective as to why I feel the way I do.


1) I ment if you could know about your childs illnesses BEFORE they were born, and then having the choice of an abortion or not. I would not kill my child unless I was sure that it's illness was too great to want it to live through.


'd love to have a 100% normal child and not have to worry about he/she needing special help with things, Lord knows that I've been picked on w/o those type of deformities/issues. If it's something major like the kid will have sever down syndrome/has cancer (I duno)/etc then I'd probably put it to sleep or whatever, but if it still has the ability to live a decent life, I can't deny it then.
I think your first post in this thread contradicts what you are trying to say with point #1, which implies euthanasia, not abortion. The phrase "put it to sleep" is used with euthanasia (which requires a child to be out of the womb), not abortion. But I agree that if you discover your unborn child has a truly lethal condition like, say, Tay-Sachs, then having an abortion is the best route.


Chelsea: Yes I am kinda being a "Savior of the Pain" when it comes to this. Yes I value life, but which should I do? Just try to forgive myself by letting my child go without his/her say in it, or just it suffer all it's life along with me&the father suffering from seeing it suffer all the time? It's all a question of opinion and mine is to just not let it suffer.

A question of not letting the child suffer, or not letting you suffer? It sounds to me you're more concerned with your own suffering and mental state, or what the best decision is for you, than about the child, especially with that statement. It may emotionally hurt you to see your child struggle and fight a disease, but a good parent stays strong for their children and helps them fight instead of giving up because they know it's going to be a rough, long road. A good parent wants to give their child the best shot at life they possibly can.

@Drex: No offense taken, as I said, I'm just trying to offer perspective from the side of someone who actually has a chronic illness. I'm really not offended in the slightest, just trying to show how it can be seen from a different point of view, especially in the eyes of someone who could have been in a situation like this.

[Seority]

@Seority: I don't think you understand my posts - I'm staying calm, you seem to be overreacting quite a bit. I'm not saying I'm "OMG IM SO RIGHT!!1", I'm trying to offer some perspective as to why I feel the way I do.
I think your first post in this thread contradicts what you are trying to say with point #1, which implies euthanasia, not abortion. The phrase "put it to sleep" is used with euthanasia (which requires a child to be out of the womb), not abortion. But I agree that if you discover your unborn child has a truly lethal condition like, say, Tay-Sachs, then having an abortion is the best route.
A question of not letting the child suffer, or not letting you suffer? It sounds to me you're more concerned with your own suffering and mental state, or what the best decision is for you, than about the child, especially with that statement. It may emotionally hurt you to see your child struggle and fight a disease, but a good parent stays strong for their children and helps them fight instead of giving up because they know it's going to be a rough, long road. A good parent wants to give their child the best shot at life they possibly can.

@Drex: No offense taken, as I said, I'm just trying to offer perspective from the side of someone who actually has a chronic illness. I'm really not offended in the slightest, just trying to show how it can be seen from a different point of view, especially in the eyes of someone who could have been in a situation like this.

Yes I ment abortion. :roll:

You couldn't believe me when I said, "I don't want my kid to suffer all his life". I think that's over reacting just a bit. I'm just re-acting to everything thinking I'm going to give birth to retared child, then stab it the troat then stab the docter who delievered it just because he has cancer... :/

I'm just trying to clairify to everyone that I'm PRO-CHOICE.

I KNOW of people living "normal" "happy" lives after being born deformed or with bad illness. But I also know of people being born with these things and disliking life greatly. Many of them took their own lives when they could. ><;

Again, this is a matter of opinion. I know what I hear from people, and I know what I have seen in this world. I still maybe young, but I'm old enough to hold my own choice. Just as you yours. If anything, I'm glad that not everyone agrees with me on this, but sad to see that some people will let life suffer just so they don't have to "kill" them or let go sometimes. Just how the world works you know?

I believe seppuku*. You are not killing them. You are doing the favor by ending their lives to end their suffering.
*[spoiler-box]Seppuku or 'disembowelment' also known as hara-kiri, 'belly slicing' is when a samurai stabs a knife into his abdomen and literally disembowels himself by cutting out his guts. After the samurai disembowels himself another samurai, usually a kinsman or friend, slices his head off. [/spoiler-box]
Again this isn't really the same situation, but I have the choice to do so. I also said only if it's an extremity. If their illness would be severe, then I would think about it. If there was only a chance of it happening, I'd risk it.

[Tensu of the moon]

I apologize for my earlier brashness, it's just that (he?) pretty much said if I was (his?) son, (he'd?) have killed me.

[Toadthroat]

I love what this thread has become.

[RufuSwho]

This is a wicked googlie of a topic, which I have avioded for days. but it just keeps popping up to the top again, doesn't it

To the OP, "ethical" is subjective, yes?

If you simply asked if I WOULD save the child, answer is, yes i would save them. And i would do whatever i could to make their life as great as possible. That's the responsibility of all parents.

I doubt anyone who has kids of their own would disagree.

But when you ask "is it ethical?", well... I'm just glad I only have to worry about making my own decisions. ;)

[Ryna]

Locked at the OP's request.