Had a pretty heated debate in one of my classes today.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Have you seen shows where children that were given 8 months to live lived for upwards to 10 years and had what most would consider wonderful lives even considering their diseases? So, if you child has cancer you're just going to write them off and not let them fight? Fuck that. You as a parent have an obligation to fight for your child and their life. You don't just fucking off your kid because they have a disease. "Oh this one is fucked up, kill it and try again."

Natural selection, happens in nature all the time. Just because we have opposable thumbs doesn't mean we're that far removed from origin species and mammalian cousins.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Come on man, why would a baby choose to be gay?

The babies evil little DNA has already made the lifestyle choice, a fate worse than cancerous death.

[Dantrag]

Natural selection, happens in nature all the time. Just because we have opposable thumbs doesn't mean we're that far removed from origin species and mammalian cousins.

Again, natural selection is them dieing naturally. Not the parent killing them.

[Egon]

If its so severe that they'll die anyway, why cause the drama of making this an option?

[Chun Liroy]

Nobody is disputing that. The question is would you do this if your child was doomed to a life of constant pain and suffering due to a medical condition. Quality of life is a big thing. I watched my Dad waste away for over two years before dying of cancer. He was in horrendous pain every day. If I could have spared him from going through that at any point I would have. That being said I would consider doing this if I knew my child had nothing but a lifetime of pain and agony ahead of it.

The questions not if you would do it, the question is if it's moral or not. That's a rather large distinction.

[hey]

You as a parent have an obligation to fight for your child and their life.

I disagree.

[Tyche]

Once you getting into euthanizing babies that have downs, autism, etc you're going down a slippery slope of Gattaca coming to fruition. "Suffering horribly" is imo the key factor here. This discussion should never be about easing the suffering of the parents.

I disagree about the parents. Some parents really do not have the resources to care for someone with such diseases. If their inability to care for the child would result in even more suffering for the child, why should they keep it? Assuming they couldn't find a foster guardian that is.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Again, natural selection is them dieing naturally. Not the parent killing them.

That sounds pretty natural to me. Killing / abandoning the weak in species is very natural, this is no different.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

The questions not if you would do it, the question is if it's moral or not. That's a rather large distinction.

If you're defending the case to do it, then you're rationalizing the morality behind it. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Rhyis.]

I disagree about the parents. Some parents really do not have the resources to care for someone with such diseases. If their inability to care for the child would result in even more suffering for the child, why should they keep it? Assuming they couldn't find a foster guardian that is.

The parents can make do with what they got. There's a fine line between autistic kids and kids that are just plain dumb. And poor parents have been raising idiot kids for eons.

[Dimmauk]

If they decide to kill the baby, they should have to actually do it themselves.

[hey]

The parents can make do with what they got.

Then everyone will be worse off.

[Zilong]

Have you seen shows where children that were given 8 months to live lived for upwards to 10 years and had what most would consider wonderful lives even considering their diseases? So, if you child has cancer you're just going to write them off and not let them fight? Fuck that. You as a parent have an obligation to fight for your child and their life. You don't just fucking off your kid because they have a disease. "Oh this one is fucked up, kill it and try again."

As far as you are concerned, the odds are just as likely for the kids to live for less than 8 months and had what most would consider a painful and miserable existence because of their disease.

How would you as a parent felt then?

[Dimmauk]

You could turn it into the next hallmark event, you could have Darwin cards and cakes.

[Chun Liroy]

If you're defending the case to do it, then you're rationalizing the morality behind it. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I looked at it in the opposite light. Just because I think something is moral doesn't mean I will do it. I can simultaneously think it's amoral to steal AND be a thief, no?

[Nevex]

Once you getting into euthanizing babies that have downs, autism, etc you're going down a slippery slope of Gattaca coming to fruition. "Suffering horribly" is imo the key factor here. This discussion should never be about easing the suffering of the parents.

I have no stance on the matter because I don't see this option becoming legally available anywhere anytime soon, but I don't understand why the bolded part isn't applicable. In fact, I think it's the very core of the matter here.

Why on earth would a couple decide to have a child for anything other than the joy of having one?
Morality aside, a child who is source of distress and suffering to the parents has failed his/her purpose right from the start. As horrible as this sentence sounds, deep inside both parents will think that at some point. As the child grows up, they'll eventually start wishing for him/her to die as fast as possible if the disability heavily affects their lives.

Responsible parents who are aware of how potentially devastating the effects of a disabled child could have on their lives should at least reflect on the possibility and wonder if not terminating the pregnancy is really the right thing to do.

And regarding the parents claiming that despite their child's disability they're happy, they're obviously lying. They're "happy" because their disabled child managed to achieve something 5 years later than a healthy one? At the same time they're dead jealous of other couples having healthy kids.
Of course they can't openly say that otherwise all the (mostly fake) sympathy they get from other people goes straight out of the window.

[Brill Weave]

Dim and MF thanks for making me laugh out loud at work. Assholes.

Have you seen shows where children that were given 8 months to live lived for upwards to 10 years and had what most would consider wonderful lives even considering their diseases? So, if you child has cancer you're just going to write them off and not let them fight? Fuck that. You as a parent have an obligation to fight for your child and their life. You don't just fucking off your kid because they have a disease. "Oh this one is fucked up, kill it and try again."

Pray you don't have to go through watching a loved one waste away from Stage IV(that means incurable, inoperable, terminal) lung cancer that spreads from the lungs to the liver, kidneys, brain, and spine. Imagine having to lower a full sized adult into bed without jostling them at all because when you did they scream in agony due to the pain. I suspect your thoughts might change.

You're also attempting to comment on absolutes. Cancer isn't necessarily a death sentence. Even up to Stage III people can go into remission and be fine. If my child came out of the womb somehow with Stage IV cancer(which again means incurable, inoperable, terminal), then yes, I would very seriously debate going through with it. Because there is no cure. Because they will be in horrendous pain and suffering from the moment they entered the world.

And Leroy in answer to your post, no it's absolutely amoral.

[Cream Soda]

Child has disability? Get out of child support free card

[Salodin]

Have you seen shows where children that were given 8 months to live lived for upwards to 10 years and had what most would consider wonderful lives even considering their diseases? So, if you child has cancer you're just going to write them off and not let them fight? Fuck that. You as a parent have an obligation to fight for your child and their life. You don't just fucking off your kid because they have a disease. "Oh this one is fucked up, kill it and try again."

Cause most people with described disabilities or diseases are as fortunate as the family with the TV show/special? Some people just aren't strong enough to go through it, whether emotionally or financially.

Would you rather have a (potentially) dead child, stressed/depressed mother/father/family, or the same couple upset at the difficult choice they made, but also releaved they can afford to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table because of not accruing the financial burden such a child would bring.

There has to be a line of course though, because while I do believe women/couples should have a choice whether to keep an unplanned (or defected) child, I don't think the decision should be based on factors like "He has dull brown hair, with brown eyes. Also, 60% chance he'll suck dick. NOTHX". I know this makes me a hypocrite, but w/e.

[Ghost_Wheel22]

Things like Harlequin/crazy bad CBDs or cord strangulation and/or severe delivery complications causing debilitating brain damage is about it on my list.

Also, would having a black baby from two white adults qualify?