22BUK

A group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued that killing young babies is no different from abortion, and should be allowed even when there is nothing physically wrong with the child.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...perts-say.html

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Morality and ethics aside; Its cheaper than the care home bills and may avert the potential social damage cuased by out of control delinquents spawned from unwanted children. The latter is contentious though, as IMO it is actually those who have kids for benefits that cause a portion of this problem.

David Lock

"Let's Kill Our Kids" screams Daily Mail headline tomorrow. Yeah I can see that idea catching on

And while they're at it lets just keep the ones with blue eyes and blond hair - now where have I heard that before?

dl

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

I remember something about a Doctor, might have been that Kervorkian bloke who advocated euthanasing problem teenagers once they showed they couldnt be civilised or behave. Even if we didnt do it, the threat of it might help, ASBOS dont seem to work.

tony de wonderful

So is putting disabled people in the back of trucks and killing them with carbon monoxide.

There is a fine line between Neo-Malthusianism and eugenics.

We're in a bit of a mess ethically with abortion. The line between when a baby can be aborted and when it cannot ti really quite arbitrary. And also we won't allow abortion based on the sex of the baby being say female.

Flaps

iTrader: (1)

I find the idea of this physically sickening

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

I dont doubt we could create a more streamlined society like Hitler advocated, but to be honest I wouldnt want to be a part of it, we cant run society like some ruthless corporation hiring and firing at will, we cant just leave disabled kids out in the cold as we lose what it is to be human and revert to being animals.

We have a lot of dead weight in society but really the infirm, the disabled and the elderely arent it, its the lazy, theiving and feckless that destroy, steal, grasp, ****, drink, smoke, fight and dont pay their way at the bottom and those that avoid their social responsibility in paying tax at the top, if everybody towed the line then there wouldnt be an issue.

tony de wonderful

They are to an extent. The state protects life sometimes at the expense of it. Who was it talking about the old guy with no legs who just stared at the TV all day?

We are not very good at dealing with death in our society, we are deeply afraid of it. So we let people suffer a lot instead of passing away sometimes.

Leslie

I find it very difficult to understand how a group of what might appear to be inteliigent people can come up with such ideas.

It is the sort of philosophy that we have seen in so called "advanced" books where people become limited in permissible numbers and at a certain age are sent to the "happy room" so that they do not become a burden on the State. Members of the government would be exempt of course!

This sort of thinking is devoid of any kind of moral background and is presented as a convenience for those who are responsible.

A life is a life and when the female ovum is fertilised that is the beginning of that life. That is the only real way to define it. All the business of the child being born or taking its first breath etc etc. is once again for convenience sake and is effectively so much balderdash!

The baby's right to life should supercede everything else and if two people start a life that they should take full responsibility for it rather than do away with it for their own selfish convenience.

If you find it difficult to understand why I say that, then put yourself in the position of that newly conceived child!

Les

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Yes, dont think really if someone is in massive pain they should be kept going for the sake of it, there should be choice there and I think on the quiet doctors do perhaps assist more than we think in this respect. I think we need to accept better when time up though rather than putting a brave face on it and talking **** like people do

"Oh you willl be up playing tennis next week, you mark my words Doris"

Doris being 94, riddled with cancer, blind, deaf, incontinent etc.

We cant really say "Sorry grandad, times up, too much Trisha, time for a bullet in the head"

My mother in law always says if the dog can get up and go to the loo, isnt in pain and is eating however old and whiffy, then they can carry on, when they cant do that its a trip to the vets, probably not a bad way to look at it.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I actually meant the care home costs for unwanted children put into care.

But carrying on - We already do it en-masse with duff baby battery hens amongst many other animals, why not extend our "playing god" activities of killing at will to babies and the infirm?
Those complaining about the article I don't think have fully took in its view that a unborn child is the same as one that is born and therefore should have the same rights/treatment. So if the unborn one can be killed...why not the born one?

It is a mess. IMO if the mother wants to abort I think she should have that right. Its her body and her life. The line at where a foetus can live independantly of the host (mother) is debateble as the line/cut-off point is muddied as usually premature birth relies on artificial (medical ) means to sustain life.

My interpretation of the article is that it is totally anti-abortion on the basis a unborn child is no different to a newborn. I disagree with that ideology and therefore I disagree with the article's foundational reason to allow for infantcide, because I do support the right of abortion.

cster

Perhaps you are right - having said that, I would certainly not like to be putting food on the family table from that type of thing.
I just wonder where they find the people who do.
There must be plenty of them about.

GlesgaKiss

This is bad. Social engineers will try to justify almost anything for the good of 'society'.

Not feeding a child is one thing, but taking positive action to kill it is quite another. Who do these people think they are? Everyone in a society should have the right not to be harmed. Totally agree with the above, in that it's the thin end of a very dangerous and unjust wedge.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

F*ck me that's the thin end of the wedge ... what next, no problem if they're below 1 as they can't speak? What after that, below 5 is ok as they've not started school. Hopefully that think tank aren't making any serious decisions

TX.

Jamescsti

As an expectant parent I find this whole article disgusting, there is something seriously wrong with the people who come up with these ideas, thankfully the law within this country namely common law would class this as murder so this should never happen.

tarmac terror

iTrader: (2)

Absolutely disgusting in my view.

Take the life from someone who is completely defenceless to the point of not even having a voice to object.

There is something fundamentally flawed with the character and thinking of anyone who offers support to this proposal.

It is not often that I am thankful for anything that comes out of Europe, but I really hope Article 2 of ECHR prevents this from gaining any momentum.

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

There are already 200000 babies aborted before they leave the womb each year in the UK, yet that seems perfectly acceptable these days unfortunately. 40 years ago there would have been national outrage, I wonder if this will be seen as acceptable in another 40 years.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

The sad truth is, none of this discussion makes very much difference to most of us, in real practical terms. It's what incompetent and feckless parents do with their kids after they're born and past the newborn stage which has a far greater effect.

cster

That is very unfair - it is only perfectly acceptable if it is not done to select the sex of the baby.
All very PC you might think.
What difference this makes to the aborted foetus is anybodies guess.

Leslie

I thought it would make a pretty big difference to them if you kill them though!

Les

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Not really, as under the current social system, a dosser has a child to get more benefits. So killing it would not be in the lazy/layabout parent's best interest.

Leslie

I meant to the affected child!

Les

Flaps

iTrader: (1)

TOTALLY agree with this

22BUK

In Holland the termination of a child's life (under age 12) is acceptable if 4 requirements are properly fulfilled:

1. The presence of hopeless and unbearable suffering
2. The consent of the parents to termination of life
3. Medical consultation having taken place
4. Careful execution of the termination

In 2005 a review study was undertaken of all 22 reported cases between 1997 and 2004. All cases concerned newborns with spina bifida and hydrocephalus. In all cases, at least 2 doctors were consulted outside the medical team. In 17 of 22 cases, a multidisciplinary spina bifida team was consulted. All parents consented to the termination of life; in 4 cases they explicitly requested it. The mean time between reporting of the case and the decision concerning prosecution was 5.3 months. None of the cases led to prosecution. The study concluded that all cases of active termination of life reported were found to be in accordance with good practice.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_Protocol

The Zohan

In answer to the OP i think it is deplorable and disgusting, we are not a third-world sh*t hole or owned by China - yet!

it does seem an increasing number of children are being bought into the world by parents (and i used the term loosely) who care little for the children other than them being a means to additional benefits and housing, these being second or third generations who accept the benefits culture and lifestyle as an easy ride through life, requiring little if no effort whatsoever and take no responsibility for their actions and are rewarded financially for doing so and 'looked after' by the state as long as they live. They do not contribute to society, nor seem to want to living as an underclass.

Surely the answer is to remove the financial incentives for having more and more kids, to push kids and adults into working for their supper and punishing them (including financially) when they transgress the rules of our society or chose to opt out and not want to work and contribute - to give back rather than just expect their hand-out's.

There will always be a few bad apples but is seems we now have whole orchards that are rotten to the core