I just always find it fascinating how easy it is for pro-lifers to say 'don't have abortions', yet when it comes down to it, they really aren't willing to do anything about the quality of life for these poor, born children that they want brought into this world so much.

Just curious, but have you ever had any one-on-one experience with the 'severely damaged'?

Aside from here on this board? Yes.

Again, what does that have to do with anything? Why do I or anyone else have to buy into your gloom and doom view of certain people's lives not being worth living?

Just because a person's life is hard does not make them worthless or without dignity that we should be so quick to end their lives for them.

I just always find it fascinating how easy it is for pro-lifers to say 'don't have abortions', yet when it comes down to it, they really aren't willing to do anything about the quality of life for these poor, born children that they want brought into this world so much.

First of all, I do not have to justify myself to you.

Second of all, I find it fascinating that pro-death fanatics are so quick to point out everybody else that they believe should have to sacrifice their lives (or liberty or money) just so they can feel good about themselves.- without having to sacrifice anything.

But this is all beside the point of this thread - Euthasia. Why do you think you should be the one to determine who lives and who dies?

I'm wondering about the attitude that says one person has the 'right' to decree that someone else will be created just to live a life of misery and suffering. I'm wondering if anyone really has that 'right'. Or if they should.

Fair enough.

Well, we could ask the newly conceived child whether it wanted to live or not. But we wouldn't get an answer until it was born and then had progressed through school and was able to understand the question.

Or we could just assume it wouldn't want to live and that way spare ourselves the mess and inconvinience of having to deal with a handicapped person.

Or we could value the child's life and human dignity by nuturing it and raising it with love and compassion. And maybe we would learn something about our own lives and our own worth as human beings.

knot e lady,

I nearly let this go by:

I wasn't judging.

Hmm, let's see what you've already said on this thread:

Babies born that premature will probably suffer lifelong disabilities, if they survive. Brain damage, blindness, MD, and numerous other problems.

Sometimes it's just best to let them go.

And

I think people are getting to be so selfish about their own feelings they are willing to keep someone alive, regardless of the quality of that life, for their own emotional crutch.

We see it with people who won't let family die (ie. Terri Schiavo) and we see it in premature babies.

Sounds to me like you're in favor of killing off the weak and unwanted.

The truth is, just by deciding to engage in the act of sex, Mankind, in a sense, decides who lives or dies since the majority of fertilized eggs have no practical chance of surviving.

Of course, having sex doesn't necessarily "kill" fertilized eggs.

However, those fertilized eggs wouldn't exist in the first place, to die later, if sex did not occur.

Sorry, but I don't mean to go on a tangent here...

No, I'm in favor of, in most circumstances, letting nature run it's course.

But, is the withholding of medical care the same thing as killing someone?

And, more in line with the topic of abortion, is the withholding of a female host from a fertilized egg the same thing as killing someone?