Thread: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

What I am objecting to is the loose definitions with which this professional opinion has been written. Exactly what constitutes a disabled fetus? Also, if it is justifiable to abort a perfectly healthy fetus as I am sure happens quite frequently based solely on the will of the mother then how is it any different from aborting a born, unwanted child even if he or she is perfectly healthy as well? The professionals are correct in saying that both are equally valid, but I do not agree that either ARE valid or justifiable. Personally, I believe that a fetus possesses humanity from the moment of conception since it is undeniable that from that point on amusing no miscarriage of course that the fetus will develop into a living, breathing, thinking human. It should not matter whether or not the fetus happens to be able to feel pain or possesses obvious signs of conscious thought. Do adult humans who loose the ability to feel pain through illnesses such as modern-day leprosy loose their humanity as well? Perhaps this sounds like a silly argument, but if we apply the same standards to adults many more people will find something a bit off with their statements. The termination of animals is not the same as humans, as animals do not possess the same rights as humans do. We are justified in tending to and making use of the resources in the world including the animals in whatever way we see fit assuming we are being responsible with them. The same does not apply to human lives since humans are not simply another natural resource like iron or chickens. I'm not accusing anyone of holding this belief, but I am merely making my own position clear. I believe that there is a clear difference between deeming someone unfit to live that is, someone outside themselves making this judgement and someone denying themselves medical care that would preserve their own life. If someone is terminally ill and wishes to forgo treatment, that is his or her own personal judgement to make. However, no one asks the baby or fetus his or her opinion in the matter. Perhaps I sound a bit paranoid when I say this, but if we begin to make judgement on the lives of others, holding ourselves to be the standard of judgement of whether someone should live or die, how are we any different than the many hated groups which preached the superiority of certain races over others and resulted in millions of innocent lives being lost? To what end where these people sacrificed? They justified themselves by deeming them unfit to live and stating that they would have been expunged from the earth naturally had the principal of survival of the fittest been allowed to function properly. If we can dictate the lives of children, why can't we also dictate the lives of adults? Its a slippery slope that I refuse to even consider, given the implications of allowing ourselves to start down that path. Please keep in mind that I am not accusing anyone of believing that we can apply the same standards to adults or nations for that matter that people are currently applying to fetuses. I am saying that what the professionals are saying currently is leading toward that way of thinking, and if one is justified in our minds what is it that keeps us from continuing down that line of thinking in the future?