'After-birth abortion' is logically sound

[Faith No More]

Tay-Sachs is extremely painful and most die by the age of five.

[Some guy]

Well basically, if you were dumb to have enough to had a kid and not be able to support it then shame on our current society but nvm it will sort itself out next time some rapper releases his new album "Lets all dig ourselves a 8ft grave!". I say rape is the only possible reason to have pre birth abortion and at no time should post birth abortion be used, the kid not only exists but is on front of you living and to snuff out its life would be like saying "Well I pay for it I decide what I do with it, even though actually I made it and its my fault whatever crap comes about because of it!"?! People who are born with disease, disabilities etcetera should not be killed because really, bit of a cliche, better to live once than never. I do know that with Tay-Sachs it would be likely agonizing pain all day every day but having the power over life and death is just stupid, how can we (who disagree on matters like God etcetera) really be qualified to say he lives as he's healthy and he can die as he's ill? Let the world we fucked up take its course and kill him, make his time the best it can be - whether it is difficult or not - and try to correct the wrong we started. No I do not mean we gave them Tay-Sachs directly but the human race condemned itself by defying God. Sorry to bring that up but I do not think what I think makes sense without, please do not think I do not care for your opinion but I do not want to get a debate about God condemning us on this thread.

[Jackalope]

I made it and its my fault whatever crap comes about because of it!

the human race condemned itself by defying God.

Cognitive dissonance or doublethink?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Age of death is a non-issue for me, it's still a human being deserving as much life as providence/chance allows. The relief of pain and human suffering is another issue entirely. The Tay-Sachs example presents a thorny moral dilemma and I think reasonable people can disagree on such an extreme case. Here, I'm a bit more forgiving. In dealing with personal end-of-life care, the approach we took was allow our loved one to gradually increase morphine for pain management even until the medicine reached a lethal dose. I'm not saying it was the right decision, but how can you just outright kill another?

However, the general article sets no conditions on infanticide. It argues that an arbitrary standard of "personhood" replace the very clear standard of being human. They are trying to define away the humanity of helpless children. It's depraved and inhuman.

[Some guy]

God made a thing with "free will", look at my post on free will. We choose to condemn ourselves, the baby cannot think by itself in a average human way so I am responsible for it as it does not what it is doing. The two statements are really unrelated, one is about God and another humans (God is not constrained by us).

[Jackalope]

God made a thing with "free will", look at my post on free will. We choose to condemn ourselves, the baby cannot think by itself in a average human way so I am responsible for it as it does not what it is doing. The two statements are really unrelated, one is about God and another humans (God is not constrained by us).

On the one hand, you claim that a creator (parents) are responsible for thier creation (children).

On the other, you claim that a creator (God) is not responsible for his creation (humanity), but rather that it is the creation's fault for behaving exactly as it's perfect, all-knowing, and all-powerful creator (according to dogma) created it to be.

Free will isn't free when you have a figurative gun pointed at your head.

So again, is it cognitive dissonance, or doublethink?

[Some guy]

If you would read what I said, grown adults have a brain and free will. They also understand their decisions (hopefully) so are responsible not the thing that made them, babies being unable to clearly reason have parents to do so for them therefore the parents are in charge and deal with consequences. God is not responsible for OUR decisions for we make them. Babies do not make decisions (well to live or die, be born or not born) the parent does so the parent is responsible for its baby.

[Jackalope]

If you would read what I said, grown adults have a brain and free will. They also understand their decisions (hopefully) so are responsible not the thing that made them, babies being unable to clearly reason have parents to do so for them therefore the parents are in charge and deal with consequences. God is not responsible for OUR decisions for we make them. Babies do not make decisions (well to live or die, be born or not born) the parent does so the parent is responsible for its baby.

That whooshing sound is the point going way over your head.

I *never* said that adults aren't responsible for thier decisions. Of course infants aren't, either, having not the mental capacity or knowing the difference between what is right and wrong.

Contrast that to the Genesis myth, and the parental "God" and his infant-like "children" Adam and Eve, who also knew not the difference between right (good) and wrong (evil), having not yet eaten of the so-called "tree of knowledge". Do you even see the symbolic message in that fairy tale? "Seek knowledge, and you're fucked."

Let's also not forget that your "God", being omniscient, knew what would happen, and being omnipotent, had the power to make it otherwise. Or so it would be if the whole business wasn't a pile of bullshit.

Your God, if he exists, is a shitty parent.

Furthermore, since your "God" must know (you know, being all-knowing, and almighty and all that) that I wouldn't believe a word of it, and he'd be forced to condemn me for it. Which, is a bit a farce, since he's the one that rigged the game to begin with.

P.S. You aren't the first believer to come through here with that exact same argument, not by a long shot. Better step up your game.

[Minimalist]

Tay-Sachs is not "handicapped."


It is a death sentence. The brain slowly turns to mush.

Last time I heard the mortality rate was 100%. Everyone dies.

But you apparently want this child to suffer for years before attaining that natural result?

Infants with Tay-Sachs disease appear to develop normally for the first few months of life. Then, as nerve cells become distended with fatty material, a relentless deterioration of mental and physical abilities occurs. The child becomes blind, deaf, and unable to swallow. Muscles begin to atrophy and paralysis sets in. Other neurological symptoms include dementia, seizures, and an increased startle reflex to noise.

Presently there is no treatment for Tay-Sachs disease. Anticonvulsant medicine may initially control seizures. Other supportive treatment includes proper nutrition and hydration and techniques to keep the airway open. Children may eventually need a feeding tube.

Even with the best of care, children with Tay-Sachs disease usually die by age 4, from recurring infection.

Don't expect a humanitarian of the year award for prolonging this.

---

Cognitive dissonance or doublethink?

Flat out fucking stupid? Just like all the other jesus freaks?
.

[Zen Badger]

mmmm Watermelons! YUM...NOMNOMNOMNOM!

Jesus will turn my ass into a watermelon canon.

You'll be able to shoot watermelons out of your ASS???.

That is just freakin AWESOME!!!

Video please.....