Question for Atheists: Abortion

[_Trevor]

Do you feel it is wrong to keep a baby with Downs Syndrome?

No.

[_collegeterrace]

No I don't think it is wrong to keep a baby with any defect.

Niether do I think it is wrong to abort a pregnancy, defective or not.

It's a personal choice.

I am against eating babies though, that is against the law, isn't it?

[Guest]

Well, in my opinion, if the family is down with the down syndrome then it's on them to sustain a life that's going to be the way it is. Retarded. The retarded kid isn't really going to understand anything other than being retarded, so it doesn't affect its life.

However, I don't see anything wrong with ending the life of a retarded baby. Why? The family or state that will have to raise it will be severely hampered in its pursuit of happiness and well-being. Once death sets in the thing that is being put to death doesn't really care, nor does it have the accumalitive experience to understand what's happening to it especially if it's a baby with down syndrome. The cruelty of life and death is lost on the retarded baby in a very real way. It's the family that has to understand and accept its own actions. Whether or not it can accept it and move forward is the question.

That being said, if the family wants to live a lifetime of challenge with a retarded life, then it's its choice. More power to them. However, if they don't, who are we to judge them? Kind of assholesish if you ask me...

[_cksalmon]

However, I don't see anything wrong with ending the life of a retarded baby. Why? The family or state that will have to raise it will be severely hampered in its pursuit of happiness and well-being.

Ah, the self-exalting joy of a utilitarian morality. This really is one of the most disgusting comments I've read here on MDB. Message: life can be justifiably discarded if his or her continued existence threatens to impinge upon my own personal happiness and well-being.

How on earth did we get to this point?

If you have (more?) children in future, I (truly) hope to God none of them strike you as inconveniently "retarded." Moreover, if at all within the realm of the possible, I'd adopt "it"--my personal "pursuit of happiness and well-being" be damned. Which, outside the appropriate target, it will be.

[_The Dude]

Kevin and cksalmon: How genetically messed up does an embryo or fetus have to be before you would agree that it's better to end it and start over fresh? Down's Syndrome can be comparatively mild, which goes along with it being the most common retardation. But something really bad, and really rare... use your imagination... could you ever condone a merciful abortion at mid-gestation?

[_SUAS]

Expecting Adam was a very good book...Which I read before you were probably even born.

I hope that you DARTMAN..actually read before you post CRAP like this thread AGAIN.

Cause I will find it and then I will be back...

Really this is just another STUPID THREAD by another STUPID MAN..

[_SUAS]

I mean KEVIN...oh crap..I mean DARTMAN...getting bored nnnnooowwww

YAWN......and so you are but mere blip on the RADAR screen of my life....

[_cksalmon]

Expecting Adam was a very good book...Which I read before you were probably even born.

I hope that you DARTMAN..actually read before you post CRAP like this thread AGAIN.

Cause I will find it and then I will be back...

Really this is just another STUPID THREAD by another STUPID MAN..

Who on earth is this comment directed toward? Kevin?

At the risk of offending Pirate (whom I like), this is a vintage Pirate post, except with manifest vitriol (which she endearingly lacks).

What's your point, exactly?

You read Expecting Adam in 2000, when Kevin was, what (per your insinuation), seven years old?

Or, have I completely misread you?

[_cksalmon]

But something really bad, and really rare... use your imagination... could you ever condone a merciful abortion at mid-gestation?

Kevin can obviously speak for himself. But, as for me, no. Merciful to whom? The aborted child? Or, merciful to the parents? If the former, then I have a fundamentally different conception of mercy (which mercifully excludes infanticide)--since, I would argue that mere existence is an inherently and fundamental good, no matter its handicaps.

If the latter, then it's a utilitarian ladder all the way down. And I don't share antishock's apparent moral neutrality anent killing "retards."

[_asbestosman]

However, I don't see anything wrong with ending the life of a retarded baby. Why? The family or state that will have to raise it will be severely hampered in its pursuit of happiness and well-being. Once death sets in the thing that is being put to death doesn't really care, nor does it have the accumalitive experience to understand what's happening to it. The cruelty of life and death is lost on the retarded baby. It's the family that has to understand and accept its own actions. Whether or not it can accept it and move forward is the question.

How does your view prohibit infanticide for "normal" babies? It's not like any babies really understand much of anything other than they want food and and security. You can bet that DS kids want those things too.

How does your view apply to the elderly when they get alzheimer's or dementia?