Should babies that are born with defects (any kind) be put down immediately, or should they live? You'd be surprised why I'm asking this. So, what's your opinion? Mine is not- all babies should have the chance to live (well, obviously, except the ones that die on their own, they didn't live), no matter what. If the doctor says if it lives, it will be in pain, so what? Pain is a part of life. True, a mother doesn't want her child to suffer, but it's part of life, just as imperfection.
__________________
Herr A: We didn't put a Christmas tree up, nothin'. We went to the beach. It was wonderful. BUT... I got in water up to my... crotch area, and when that wave hit ALLLLLLLL my business went running towards my intestinal tract...
No. If its known the baby is going to have a severe birth defect and it will it inable the baby in living a normal life, I think the mother should have a choose.
Yes, pain is indeed a part of life, but do you really want to add severe birth defects? You dont even have to put any babies down, its easy as far as I know to detect such severe birth defects when the baby is still a fetus, you could just abort it. Its pretty much the same, but better when its a fetus then when its out in the world.
EDIT: No actuelly, I think the mother always has the right to abort if she wants. But the babies should have the chance to live once theyre out, because people with birth defects can live good lives, you dont know. I think they should be able to terminate themselves if they dont wish to live because of their birth defect.
Everyone already has the ability to terminate themselves, so theres nothing really to do. Well I do think the state should have facilities for people who want to terminate themselves, since there are so many people that have tried to commit suicide several times before they suceed.
Interesting. I see your point. Actually, you covered it so well I have nothing to add. O_o That's never happened to me before. I do believe I have met my intellectual match. Finally.
__________________
Herr A: We didn't put a Christmas tree up, nothin'. We went to the beach. It was wonderful. BUT... I got in water up to my... crotch area, and when that wave hit ALLLLLLLL my business went running towards my intestinal tract...
I was quick to make my first statement though, I didnt think about it, its the person him/herself that should decide wether or not he/she wants to live. You just cant know if that person will live happily or not because of their birth defect.
It would really depend on the birth defect in question. If the birth defect makes it absolutely excruciating for the baby to even be alive, I would argue that it is okay to do a mercy euthanasia. However, you would rarely have to - babies who are born with these kind of decision usually die on their own. :-/
Other than that, I believe they should be allowed to live. I will refer to an anecdote now.
There was once this kid born in England (I think) who had severe cerebral palsy. He was completely paralyzed from the time he was a mere infant. So much, in fact, that his mother did not even know if there was anything going on in his head. He had to be fed constantly, have everyone do all motor functions for him, etc. Many thought he was brain dead. Then, scientists invented this pill that would allow people like him just to move - just a little - when the boy was 12 years old. His mother, hoping in hope, bought the pills for her son. The pill allowed him to move juussttt a little, but it allowed him to become a great writer. He was completely normal intellectually the entire time, he just didn't have the capability of showing it until the pill. But now he's successful.
Stories such as that lead me to believe that no one should give up on a kid, no matter how bad off they seem.
Indeed, you never know what could happen. It would have been a waste if they had put him down. It can be a waste when women abort their babies too, but its a part of the womens life and body as long as its in there. We do have a population problem anyway...
As Techfan found out, I myself have one, and no one thought about putting me down, but my mother (thank god she let ME decide) thought about having my thumb (the farthest most nub on the short finger) removed because it seemed not to do me any good. What good would THAT have done? The bone is fused halfway down, that would have made it more uncosmetic. (If that's a word.)
__________________
Herr A: We didn't put a Christmas tree up, nothin'. We went to the beach. It was wonderful. BUT... I got in water up to my... crotch area, and when that wave hit ALLLLLLLL my business went running towards my intestinal tract...
A deformed hand is not something I think is severe enough at all to inable someones ability to live a good a life. I've changed my opion since I know its possible for people to live a good life, even if they have severe birth defects. Some just can figure it out, others cant.
You just cant know when theyre born, even if they are living a sad life its not sure theyd want no life at all. So it should always be up to themselves.
Just so you know dOMITUPSYK, I wouldnt have changed my position on it even if you had such a severe handicap, that I would have considered acceptable for your parents to put you down. I've changed my position now because of other things though.
I'm just saying I would'nt and will never change my position if someone went ''OMFG I HAVE A BIRTH DEFECT, YOUR EVIL!!!'' to me. I know you didnt mean anything like that though, I'm just clarifying what I meant.
Yeah, I know. I can read between the lines, unlike most people. Most people would be like "OMFG HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT BLAH BLAH BLAH EXPLICATIVE" and I would be like, What?
__________________
Herr A: We didn't put a Christmas tree up, nothin'. We went to the beach. It was wonderful. BUT... I got in water up to my... crotch area, and when that wave hit ALLLLLLLL my business went running towards my intestinal tract...
Just to challenge you oddity, let me ask you this, if you had Hitler/Stalin/George bush (Which ever is your preferred monster) as a baby in your hands, would you NOT kill them?
It depends on what sort of birth defects. Whether they're physical or mental defects. I'm not trying to blow my own trumpet, but I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome when I was three years old. Now how would the doctor's have known I had it if they decided I should die at birth?
If you're talking about a physical defect, I think any parent would love their child even though they might have three eyes or six arms or something abnormal or another. If a parent should not want the child, it would either be (A) that they might not want a deformed baby as their own, or (B) that they are too scared that they might not fufill every need for the deformed child.
And what you're saying Techfan, you can't exactly know how they will turn out unless you let them live, or you can see into the future and know if they become a tyrant or not.
But at the end of the day, life is a very sacred gift. And that gift should not be wasted or abused by themselves or other people. No-one has the right to take someone's life. Only in rare cases like euthanasia or abortions would have to be taken into consideration.
Well obviously you don't know what the child will be like unless you let them live and get to know them. If we can see into the future, and we see our child was going to be a tyrant, then obviously, the first idea would be for the child to be killed. However, even if we did know what they would be like years into the future, maybe we could prevent that from happening by teaching it how not to be a tyrant and give it plenty of love.
It's not that we can see into the future. What I was suggesting was that if we knew what they are going to do when they get older, would it be right to wipe them out from existance? Or would we make the effort to make sure they don't make some very bad mistakes later on in live?
Right of course, alternative methods. That is better. I usually just think of the violent method first, You know?
Me:Aww... a baby (I dont really like babies) Psychic: Its Hitler. Me: ARGH! HITLER BABY! KILL IT, KILL IT! *Throws baby Hitler into ground and tramples it*
Thats was just my train of thought... though I do think its ignorant to think tyrans become tyrants because of lack of love.
I wouldn't think I'm a tyrant... just... b!+chy sometimes. Especially when I'm hungry.
Topic at hand: I think no. Unless the baby'd be a vegetable or something, that's just a waste of money the parents might not have. (For medical expenses.)
__________________
Herr A: We didn't put a Christmas tree up, nothin'. We went to the beach. It was wonderful. BUT... I got in water up to my... crotch area, and when that wave hit ALLLLLLLL my business went running towards my intestinal tract...
Personally, Every child has at least a right to life and to experiance it's blows and hardships and hope. However, if the unborn child would only die at birth or that because of the handicap, it puts the mother's life in danger, then it would only be right to have an abortion. This is the mother's decision at the end of the day however and she can only decide.
And just like my sister said, only on rare occastions should euthanasia or abortions be considered. I personally support both as it is not up to anyone to decide but the person in question to decide whether or not to die.
Just to challenge you oddity, let me ask you this, if you had Hitler/Stalin/George bush (Which ever is your preferred monster) as a baby in your hands, would you NOT kill them?
For this question, Yes again as Akira has already said, the first reaction you would have if you found out that your child is going to grow up to be a blood thirsty tyrant, would be to kill it quickly. However, I believe that again, everyone has a right to live and maybe just maybe, if you taught it morals like justice, trust, loyalty, friendship, forgiveness, kindness and mercy, maybe you could change it's future from a tyrant to a fair and kind ruler.
__________________
Stars in your eyes little one, Where you go to dream of a place we all know, The Land of Make-Believe
To be honest twilight girl, It wasnt that Hitler lacked morals or justice or friends. Not at all. He just had a diffrent set of morals and justice. It would be extremely ignorant to deem him moraless.
This is where it gets really subjective in a philosophical way. What is justice? This is where the whole arguement of right&wrong starts, Hitler and the nazis just have another position than yours or mine.
Do you get what I mean? It wouldnt be a question of teaching him morals and justice, it would be a question of teaching him a DIFFRENT set of morals and justice than the one he would grow up to beleive in.
The same goes for Stalin and alot of other political tyrants, but then you also would have to give a water-proof arguement as to WHY their morals and policies were wrong. Because I can promise you they'd have arguements for their beleifs.
This is where it gets really subjective in a philosophical way. What is justice? This is where the whole arguement of right&wrong starts, Hitler and the nazis just have another position than yours or mine.
Do you get what I mean? It wouldnt be a question of teaching him morals and justice, it would be a question of teaching him a DIFFRENT set of morals and justice than the one he would grow up to beleive in.
Actually, justice isn't all that subjective or vague in nature. Justice is simply giving each their due. It's morality that's quite ambivalent and vague, and can be interpreted in different ways. And yes, morality often dictates justice. But justice itself isn't that subjective.
That comes down to morals and ideals, though. Justice is still the process of giving each their due in both cases, what "their due" is is decided by morality.
Heh ^^; I suppose both of you have good points on justice. I guess I didn't think that maybe there are many interprataions of justice.
Yes, you are right Techfan, I'm sorry. I guess different people have different ideas on justice, Like Hitler would think killing Jews was right but other people thought it was wrong.
Dragonwing you too are right, Justice and morals go hand in hand. Maybe I was just thinking of my morals instead of morals of someone who wasn't brought up like me.
__________________
Stars in your eyes little one, Where you go to dream of a place we all know, The Land of Make-Believe
That comes down to morals and ideals, though. Justice is still the process of giving each their due in both cases, what "their due" is is decided by morality.
Right whatever, I was wrong to take that standpoint anyway since I didnt know the definition of justice.
I suppose justice and morality are defined by what you believe in, so it's whatever you think is right based on your beliefs and ideas. For instance, My morals (somewhat) coincide with those of Chrsitianity, but there are things I view as right and moral that Christians don't.
__________________
Herr A: We didn't put a Christmas tree up, nothin'. We went to the beach. It was wonderful. BUT... I got in water up to my... crotch area, and when that wave hit ALLLLLLLL my business went running towards my intestinal tract...
That comes down to morals and ideals, though. Justice is still the process of giving each their due in both cases, what "their due" is is decided by morality.
Right whatever, I was wrong to take that standpoint anyway since I didnt know the definition of justice.
Yeah sorry. I normally wouldn't have said anything, since it was kind of a moot point to begin with, but I've debated exactly the different between morality and justice like 18,000+ times in value debate, so I wanted to put that experience to use >_>
< --- made by WaterJewelEmi
