Tenebrae Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=416003&in_page_id=1770&8 Awesome news, eh? Finally, the CofE has given in to hate and with each passing moment becomes more my servant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 :o I wouldn't call this 'awesome news'. My personal opinion on the subject is that we shouldn't be allowed to kill someone just because they are very young. We shouldn't be allowed to chose who dies and who lives. If someone is very sick we should try to help them in anyway we can and fight to keep them alive up untill the last moment. A disabled person can accomplish anything throughout their lives - who are we to say they can't live out their life before they've even experienced it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slug Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Babies have no identity. Nothing is lost. that's my very simple view of infanticide. The biggest tragedy is not the death itself but the parental sense of loss. If you think about it, it would make more sense to say, allow impoverished people to have real lives rather than pour huge amounts of resources into keeping severely disabled people alive. Yet this arguement does not really stand up to scrutiny, it could also be applied to the amount of resources people expend on their pets, or indeed any aspect of their lives. This is why I would rather remain sociopathically dissasociated than have any real moral opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 As with all things a little of both is right imo. It is just a matter of where you draw your personal line. The opinion of the people with more power (politicians/wealthy individuals/...) allways weights heavier than the opinion of the rest, but after taking this into consideration, the 'most popular' opinion will be the one that sets the laws. Higher moral standards have a price, in fact every person has a price (whether they agree to that or not, everybody has its price), they weigh on a nations budget, as with all things lately, monetairy affairs take precedence over moral affairs if the price is high enough. In fact we're all ready condoning that millions of people have a less 'fortunate' life then others, I don't see why this specific matter is any different. As I said, it's a matter of drawing lines... Where you draw your own line is your own business, as long as you don't advertise it, when you advertise it, it becomes a matter of public discussion, where the most powerfull opinion will prevail. Which one that is, will have to be seen in this case... How morally/politically correct are people nowadays... I've no idea... imo, when some person has the same potential as a pet (or even a plant), they should be treated as such... (don't misinterpret my words, I'm not saying such persons should be terminated) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest c4evap Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Natural selection would weed out the sick babies but we have interfered. Maybe we should let nature take its natural course. Better for the gene pool??? c4 B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now