The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
If a foetus has a serious genetic defect (its life will be comprised of sitting in a chair and drooling) do you think a compulsory abortion should take place?
Page:
Forest Fan wrote:
> Anyone want to disagree?
What if the alternative is young girls getting an op performed in by some shady character with dubious medical background? Because you realise that's exactly what would happen if abortion were completely illegal.
> Anyone want to disagree?
What if the alternative is young girls getting an op performed in by some shady character with dubious medical background? Because you realise that's exactly what would happen if abortion were completely illegal.
The child should live, at least until it can make a conceisence decision.
Forest Fan wrote:
> ßora† §agdiyeV, shouldn't that be the child's choice? Not
> ours.
How can the child decide when it hasn't been born yet?
Where is the compassion in letting someone be born, who you know will never have a normal life, will be in great pain on a daily basis, and will basically live a tortured existence in every sense of the term?
There are much worse things than death.
> ßora† §agdiyeV, shouldn't that be the child's choice? Not
> ours.
How can the child decide when it hasn't been born yet?
Where is the compassion in letting someone be born, who you know will never have a normal life, will be in great pain on a daily basis, and will basically live a tortured existence in every sense of the term?
There are much worse things than death.
ßora† §agdiyeV, shouldn't that be the child's choice? Not ours.
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> It depends what the 'serious genetic defect' was. If the child would
> have virtually no quality of life, then it would surely be humane to
> terminate.
>
> But it's a massive grey area, just like the whole 'euthanasia'
> debate.
This is how i feel also.
By the way Forest Fan, if you were about to have a child, and found out that it would be unable to speak, eat, or even think, do you still think it would be wrong to prevent that suffering?
> It depends what the 'serious genetic defect' was. If the child would
> have virtually no quality of life, then it would surely be humane to
> terminate.
>
> But it's a massive grey area, just like the whole 'euthanasia'
> debate.
This is how i feel also.
By the way Forest Fan, if you were about to have a child, and found out that it would be unable to speak, eat, or even think, do you still think it would be wrong to prevent that suffering?
It depends what the 'serious genetic defect' was. If the child would have virtually no quality of life, then it would surely be humane to terminate.
But it's a massive grey area, just like the whole 'euthanasia' debate.
But it's a massive grey area, just like the whole 'euthanasia' debate.
Anyone want to disagree?
Abortion is muder.
They did do this in Sweden (certainly in a Scandanavian country), I believe, in the 60s/70's. Also very young kids with abnormally low IQs were also "terminated".
They achieved genetic "purity" but are still trying to come to terms with their actions.
Personally I don't think that it should be comulsory to terminate foetuses with "genetic defects", as every parent has a right to bring their child into the world.
They achieved genetic "purity" but are still trying to come to terms with their actions.
Personally I don't think that it should be comulsory to terminate foetuses with "genetic defects", as every parent has a right to bring their child into the world.
It should never have been allowed.
Page: