oxdt83 said:
I might start by asking all the pro-lifers on this board, what gives us the right to bring life into the world in the first place?
It's not about a right to, it's what we are biologically meant to do...biology does not acknowledge these sort of questions. Of course, countries such as China have imposed restrictions of bearing children because of the over population problem, but their situation is an extreme one.
To start thinking clearly about the problem we're faced with here, let's get one thing straight. A baby is not a human being. It is to some degree sentient, like all animals, but has no identity, no plans, no conscious understanding of the world that surrounds it.
Garbage. Try having a few kids of your own and taking care of them, maybe your sense of compassion and love will blossom. Children need our protection, whether they are 6 months old, or 6 years old and have an "identity". And you did state "baby", which is much different then a fetus, if that is the term you meant to state.
Why can't the state intervene so that these infants are allowed to die, on exactly the same grounds that the state intervenes to prevent child abuse?
There is a big difference in parents who harm their child with violence and harsh words then parents who take the time, effort and money to nuture one with special needs. Did you ever think of the sacrifice these parents are willing to endure for a special needs child? Modern medicine has made the lives of these special need children much more comfortable and better quality then 50 years ago. And the state does intervene, at least in the United States-kids get all sorts of extra education and community support that you probably weren't aware of to help them be the best they can be for our society as a whole.
Of course one feels deep compassion for the parents, who are instinctively attached to the child, but it is quite possible that their hard-wired instincts to preserve the life of their offspring could end up harming the child. And the possibility that the child *may* grow up to have a rich and fulfilling life is irrelevant - the newborn infant has no rights, it is still only a potential human being.
If that were the case, murders of newborn children wouldn't be a crime. Once a child is born and breathing, they have every right as any minor does, including to be raised by loving parents who take their responsibility of parenthood seriously.
Of course it's a difficult ethical decision for the doctor, or courts, or whatever is the relevant authority to decide. But we make tough ethical decisions all the time, we can't help but make them.
If doctors or courts intervened in cases like these, you can bet your bowtie abortion would also be illegal. When a woman is pregnant and seeks prenatal care (I happen to be 5 months pregnant right now), she receives a lot of testing in the first trimester of her pregnancy, including an ultrasound (typically) that can determine the condition of her baby. The prenatal visits aren't just for her, but for the welfare of the fetus. If she finds out that there are abnormal genetic problems, she finds out in the first trimester, and can make her own decision to abort. Doctors and courts have not taken this right from her, nor should they take the right from her to raise a special needs child if she chooses.
I am assuming you are pro-choice because of your opening paragraph to pro-lifers, so on that assumption, I ask you why would you advocate a woman making the choice to terminate a pregnancy but not her choice to raise a child that has special needs?
I can't imagine anything worse on my conscience than being responsible for bringing a tortured consciousness into the world.
Do you have proof that a special needs child has a tortured consciousness because of their limitations? Not everyone has the same perspective of life and quality of it as you do.
for a while, I find it quite rewarding.