It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by btho5888
No the problem is abortion and the problem is irresponsible people. And the problem also is people like you who fail to see that. You see abortion as an answer to a problem. If we put as much time, money and effort into trying to solve the problem of irresponsible people then maybe abortion wouldnt have to seen as the only answer to this problem.
And to answer your question...I have...twice. And will again if I have too!
granted, but some gamilies might not see it your way.
Originally posted by Astygia
Maybe I misunderstood the concept of "active" euthenasia. So replace "someone else's child" with "your child" and the rest still applies.
Originally posted by prototism
this story is pretty damn disturbing, but, based on the way the article is written, i dont know if i necessarily disagree with the rationale.
however Stormrider, i have a bone to pick with your comments. while i agree there needs to be "guidelines", you mention the issue of the slippery slope. now is it just me, or did you already fall down the slippery slope, and then write the bolded sentence? (in other words, it seems to me that youre being a bit hypocritical)
Originally posted by Stormrider
So, we have finally come to the point as a species where we are actively looking to erase life because it is not pretty or completely healthy. What's next, the euthanasia of newborns with the "wrong" color eyes or hair? When you start down the slippery slope of "bio-ethics", it is important to have guidelines.
Originally posted by DrBones666
Also, by killing a disabled infant, you may be killing the next Dr. Steven Hawkings,
Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
I was being sarcastic honestly.
I agree with you 100% about this being sick.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
First it will be 'allowed to kill' the severely defective. Then it will be 'allowed to kill' the simply defective. Then it will be 'mandatory to kill' the severely defective - for the good of the world situation or some such thing. Then it will be 'allowed to kill' for financial reasons. Then it will be 'allowed to kill' for _________ (fill in the blank).
BTW .. whoever put 'proactive' as a tag at the bottom of this ...
Murder of newborns is not a 'proactive' thing .... it's a MURDER thing.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
if a child will never be able to function and has perminate brain damage, I think it should be considered. I know for a fact that if I were a quadripilegic I would want an assisted suicide possibly. If I weren't mentally capable to make the decision, then Id want it definately.
To me the most important things are independence, and to have that completely restricted, I would want an assisted suicide, yes. Should we do it to newborns? Well it depends on the sickness. If that baby is born with a heart defect, no, because that is definately something thats within grasps of curing. Perminate brain damage...thats non curable, so it should be considered.
You say if they were adult its different, but what if the disabled person is incapable of even being able to have the process of thinking about that. So mentally disabled they don't really have any conscious thoughts?
Originally posted by jensouth31
Don't attack my thoughts on this issue...I know they aren't your thoughts they are mine.