Do you think it is right to have a child who will have a very poor quality of life?
That is a moral dilemma right there. Once you gonna decide on someone else behave what constitutes a good quality of life or the very right to existence you, where does it stop! Euthanasia, Nazism, Pol-Pot, Stalin all those deeds that hide behind those names and sounds are based on an assumption, on that leap that you're making right there, that you know better and that gives you the right to deicide about matters of life and death.
A fact that you're driven by a good intentions. What you would term the best intention, doesn't change a thing!
In short is not your call unless you can bring dead to life.
That utilitarian arrogance is a nothing new. It has been know to our pagan ancestors, to the ancient Romans and Greeks as well. In fact it is not an alien idea in many parts of the glob. Where the influence of the Christian civilization had has only left a very superficial markings.
A moral superiority of the European civilization had been confirmed by its global, historical success. Technological and material wealth came only as a distant second.
Our civilization by gradually loosing its moral standards. By turning its back on them, is on a good way to lose itself.
A sad part is that some people (even on this forum) would say that is a good thing. Fools!
I would not want to raise a child for it to go through life like that.
Don't do it of you're not up for it! No one is telling you to do what you cannot do. Doesn't necessary means that you have to kill such a child.
Of course it would, but sometimes hard decisions have to be made.
Hard and convenient, not hard and moral.
I also object to the use of the word 'kill'
I'm sure you do. I call a spade a spade. Notice that I have no objected to you talking about an 'abortion' or whatever other euphemism you chose to adopt. That your choice and your views which I respect. Yet I hold an opposite position on the issue and I will use those terms that best stress my views.
Since when feelings justify murder? By the way - what mother? Ex-mother? That's a conundrum.
If a woman in question doesn't believe that she is carrying a child but some inanimate object a bundle of cells for example, shouldn't be swayed or upset by what others say. Simple!
I wouldn't even stop her from doing what she does. I don't understand why people are sometimes blocking those places that're killing children and for same reason are called clinics.
Each person responsible for his own deeds. Hence if the hypothetical person in question would be sure that she is in the right, what's the harm in listening to opinions that differ?
Good parents will always put the welfare of their child first.
I just can hear that convo.
"Listen sweetie we cannot afford to give you a life you clearly deserve. Setting for less wouldn't be fair on you - the best solution you have to go. That is for the best, we're doing that only for you!"
As for 'not being up for a task',
There is no shame in that. If you can't you can't. No-one would wish to force a child conceived in such a circumstances on a mother. The emphasis is not on questioning the 'ability' of a mother, nor her fitness to be a mother so to speak. That is not about that all women competition deal that often looks like a pretending game.
That is a deadly serious issue of the life and death.
Rapist should be hanged for all I care. A rape is wrong. Killing children is also wrong. Two wrongs don't make it right. Period.
On the issue of children as a result of a rape. That is a standard leftie counterfeited currency they try to circulate. I don't remember exactly how many pregnancies as a result of a rape are out there but those numbers I have checked some time ago were negligible numbers. It is very rare occurrence. Same pertain to children with crippling or life threating disabilities.
What I mean to say, why talk about that?
Let's assume for the sake of our debate that I would agree that killing children would be OK:
if mother's life would be in danger
if pregnancy would be result of rape
Would you conceded to a law stipulating also - No 'abortion' for any other reason?
We are talking here about exceptional circumstances
Surly even in such exceptional circumstances there is no need for an 'abortion'. There're other less radical solutions. In the age that have more understanding for the most vile murder than their victim/s, that instead of eradicating criminals aims at excusing them, such a radical approach to unborn children seems unduly harsh in my opinion.
The baby did not even have a brain, there was no chance of survival, so what possible reason was there for the pregnancy to continue?
Well, no machine or doctor is prefect, there were mistakes made in that matter. Chillingly often. If the child die anyway - what's the harm?
For the satisfaction
I doubt that many people who derive a satisfaction from a misery of others would care at all for unborn children!
If anything it is completely immoral
Really? Preventing a child from being born is completely moral. Its for its own good. What morality we are talking about?
That Doctor's opinion
His educated guess. He is not a prophet and couldn't guarantee of the outcome. Is pretty irrelevant in relation to the past events, flaming even. What happened was simple - she complained, they ignorant it. She lost her life. Would they run complex medical check up on her the outcome might have been different. Did they requested such a check up? I don't know.
That Doctor's opinion was required so that lessons could be learned
What lesson? If a woman complaining about some problems and demands an 'abortion' - medical stuff should be automatically required to do that? That practically an unrestricted abortion. Disgusting!
Or - run complex tests? Lesson learned. Good!
then that if someone female in your family was unfortunate enough to be raped, you would want that person to have the child
Sure, I'm not a hypocrite.
Plus, from the pro-lifer's point of view, if all abortion is wrong, how can you justify saving the mother's life over that of the child?
I would rather call myself someone who 'understand' rather than pro-lifer.
I understand that unborn child is not only a bundle of cells. That is a fact, that has nothing to do with Church, religion or whatnot! Some people don't get it some don't care.
That fact has it's consequences this time that has all to do with a religion and morality. If you believe that - do not kill - is something you're on board with, you cannot condone killing children.
Meaning voting for those people who would amend laws - its simple really.
To address your question. The difference is in the aim of the doctors, in their intention. They aim to save mother's life not to kill a child if in the process of saving her life, child dies that too bad.