Civilized Man May Soon Revile Abortion as it Does Slavery

[TerryMiller]

While the article in this link goes to "The Resurgent," his article is based on one at VOX, which is a VERY liberal publication. If one wants to read the VOX article, it looks like there is a link in this article to that one.

I'm literally surprised that VOX ran this.

Civilized Man Will Soon Revile Abortion as it Does Slavery

I can only hope that this is true, but I hope it doesn't take another 50 years for it to happen.

 

[Aries]

This is at least somewhat encouraging.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

I fear we may be headed in the opposite direction. With the idea of being able to terminate the life at birth if the abortion didn't work, I can see a move to terminate if there is a deformity, or weakness, or even the wrong sex. Then we would have those that since they now wait to name the child, or even assign a gender for several months, may decide that we need an approval period.

I know, far fetched. But I'm seeing things today that I thought were far fetched in years past.

 

[donner]

i'm sure they will also wonder why, when equipped with the knowledge and ability to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, that our society purposefully worked against it.

 

[John6185]

I think reparations are in order!

 

[Tanis143]

I fear we may be headed in the opposite direction. With the idea of being able to terminate the life at birth if the abortion didn't work, I can see a move to terminate if there is a deformity, or weakness, or even the wrong sex. Then we would have those that since they now wait to name the child, or even assign a gender for several months, may decide that we need an approval period.

I know, far fetched. But I'm seeing things today that I thought were far fetched in years past.

Just to play devils advocate (and I in no way support this) but how is that wrong? We are the only species that allows offspring to live on if they are deformed and can not function in our society. Would it not be more humane to allow these children to pass on at birth instead of living a life of struggle and saddling the parents with astronomical hospital bills only to have them end up in a home costing their parents or tax payers more money?

(Again, don't support this, just want to see where this discussion goes. For the record my sister had cerebral palsy. I spent quite a bit of time in the J.D. McCarty center in Norman for her neurological checkups.)

 

[DavidMcmillan]

Oh boy, this should be interesting...

 

[xseler]

 

[Ethan N]

Just to play devils advocate (and I in no way support this) but how is that wrong? We are the only species that allows offspring to live on if they are deformed and can not function in our society. Would it not be more humane to allow these children to pass on at birth instead of living a life of struggle and saddling the parents with astronomical hospital bills only to have them end up in a home costing their parents or tax payers more money?

(Again, don't support this, just want to see where this discussion goes. For the record my sister had cerebral palsy. I spent quite a bit of time in the J.D. McCarty center in Norman for her neurological checkups.)

It’s a pretty easy question, though the consequences of the answer may be difficult for any of us to bear. Each person has the same rights as any other person. An infant is a person. No amount of rationalization about the costs of protecting a disabled person’s life or sparing them lifelong suffering can override their right to live. Only the infant has the right to decide that continuing his life isn’t worth the suffering. At that age, he cannot make an informed decision on that question, so his parents have a duty to protect his right to life until his vulnerability/incapacitation ends or until guardianship passes to someone else (who the duty to protect also passes to).

The suffering of disabled people and their families is nothing to be cavalier about. They ought to have the full support of their community (though there’s no need for that support to be facilitated by government). But no one has a right not to suffer. Suffering is an inevitable part of life and, unfortunately, some suffer more than their share.

 

[BrandonM]

I have 2 kids with a chromosome disorder. One will likely live with us forever and the other will be able to hold a job and provide for himself. Both of them are loving caring children. How can anyone say that killing them as an infant is a benefit to them. If you asked either of them if they wanted to die the answer would be no. Where do draw the line? Either life is precious and worth protecting or it isn’t. What if you as an adult we’re in an accident and lost both legs. Should society determine whether your life is worth the effort and burden? What if you couldn’t work and had to be supported by the tax payers? Surely then you want to be murdered.