(March 9, 2011 at 2:56 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You think just because you can't see the suffering you're causing that makes it ok?!? But when you have to face the reality that's not ok? Taking the least painful course of action seems reasonable to me, but you don't seem to be arguing that? No, your argument is the parents suffered more. If it was me I wouldn't give a toss about myself.. I'd want the best for the baby. ..oh yeah right... it's a baby - it has no right to life.

Pathetic argument fr0d0. The baby has (you are arguing) the RIGHT to suffer for a solid 15 minutes for the sake of YOUR godboy??

Just another ignorant disgusting faith based law from christianity... so hateful and hurtful.

And YES you give the parents the "privilege" to WATCH the life of this poor child drain away. Well done ...you did the same with tadpoles and fish when you were younger???

It make my blood boil too at the patriarchal stupidity

Explain to me how a merciful death is worse than the possibility of going through 2% functionality and maybe I'll see why you're defending the need for this baby to have been born.

(March 9, 2011 at 7:01 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: Explain to me how a merciful death is worse than the possibility of going through 2% functionality and maybe I'll see why you're defending the need for this baby to have been born.

Given what was wrong with it, do you really believe it had a 2% possibility of functioning?

My opinion on this is probably what everyone expects from me by now: no point giving birth to the dead.

No - 2% seemed a hopeful estimate. I don't find sanctity of life to be 'protected' by making anyone, child or parents, endure this sort of situation. I think it speaks of a highly romanticized ideal. When someone clings to a "2%" chance, they're hoping for a miracle...but the real world isn't House and there is no god who is going to swoop down and make that child able to live.

For the record: I have my own film crew taping what I do every moment of every day. Apparently, it is entertaining when I talk to myself.

So while your real world might not be a lot like House... mine is ^_^

<something constructive, like "Really, why didn't they go out of state?">

(March 9, 2011 at 5:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Like it isn't an independent life.

It's not.

(March 9, 2011 at 11:28 am)Ubermensch Wrote:

(March 9, 2011 at 5:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Like it isn't an independent life.

It's not.

Yeah, terminology can really confuse the issue. Obviously an unborn baby isn't independent, and life isn't really the issue. We destroy viruses all the time. The unborn baby is a unique human individual that will only have one opportunity to live. That's why it's right to live is equal to that of every other human being.

So again... this baby wasn't going to have a life. It was going to die. I think if that child had had a hope in hell of functioning after birth, that woman would probably have fought to keep it alive. But it didn't. Instead it was born and it suffered. And it died. And I'm still not getting answers as to why the choice to end its suffering that much sooner is less noble than spitting it out and watching it strangle on itself.

(March 9, 2011 at 11:45 am)corndog36 Wrote:

(March 9, 2011 at 11:28 am)Ubermensch Wrote:

(March 9, 2011 at 5:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Like it isn't an independent life.

It's not.

. The unborn baby is a unique human individual that will only have one opportunity to live. That's why it's right to live is equal to that of every other human being.

Non sequitur.

(March 9, 2011 at 11:45 am)corndog36 Wrote: The unborn baby is a unique human individual that will only have one opportunity to live. That's why it's right to live is equal to that of every other human being.

But this isn't true, is it? If it were true, then if a pregnancy endangered the life of the mother we should flip a coin to decide if the pregnancy should continue or not. But any right headed person would agree that the mother's life takes precedence and the pregnancy should be terminated.