I don't believe this article!!!!!!

ooh, thank you for the link. i can use it with my gcse pupils -we study 'when does life begin?'

there is at least one community that thinks a child is not 'alive' until it can speak, and so killing a child before that time is abortion, not murder.

for me personally, abortion is murder or euthanasia, depending on the circumstances.

Thanks for replies very much appreciated xxx

I remember talking to a friend who had been a midwife during the time that the thalidomide babies were being born, the late 50s and early 60s. She told me that many of them that could have been kept alive were not because it was thought that the deformities were too severe

Pink I'm so sorry for your family's loss. I can see why you continue to think about him - a little person who had lived. I hope you can remember him without that raw pain. He won't be forgotten when he has his grandmother and family keeping his memory alive

Oh Pink that is so so sad. The littlest baby I've ever known was born in Holland at 24 weeks 3 days. Mum and dad were told that if she'd arrived just before 24 weeks the hospital would not have intervened. She is now 7 and despite a few problems is coping well. My mum had a son just 1 year before I was born. Although there was no immediate problem, he had breathing difficulties and died at 24 hours. Mum had no photo, no baptism and was not encouraged to talk about him. It's good that you can cherish memories.

My sixth and last grandchild was born alive at 20 weeks. His parents (my DS2 and his then GF) were told he was too small for any attempts to keep him alive.
This brave little baby kept breathing for 25 minutes until he gave up the fight and died in his mother's arms.This baby is never out of my mind. He is still my grandson.I never met him but have a photo taken of him shortly after he died.
The hospital chaplain arrived too late to baptise him, but he was given a name and had prayers said over him.
This happened in 2003. My son's former girlfriend had been taken to hospital after being told she was going to miscarry.

There is a difference in law in assisting somebody to kill themselves, and killing them. The UK law on assisted suicide is a complete fudge - whilst it remains illegal to facilitate suicide (which is not illegal) the DPP has said it will not prosecute. I would suggest that there is a case to be made that this is discrimination against those people who are too ill/disabled to carry out the necessary act when it would be possible for people who are not so disabled. I hope that our lawmakers were not influenced by the religious beliefs of part of the population.

I couldn't ask someone I love to 'bump me off' because that would put them on the wrong side of the law, unless that changes, which it won't. DS has suggested, jokingly, I assume (confused) a trip to Switzerland.

helmacd Assisted suicide and mercy killing of the terminally ill (who are not, of course invariably old) or the demented (also not invariably old) is not the same thing as acceptable killing of old people.

Returning to the original post and the article in question, there is logic to the idea that a newborn in a situation that would have been acceptable, legal grounds for abortion when a foetus should be allowed to die or even killed. However, logic is not the sole criterion for ethical decisions and the idea of deliberately killing a newborn baby, however disabled, is, I suspect, unpalatable to most people. Allowing a severely disabled baby to die by giving only palliative care is more acceptable to some. No one is suggesting that this should be policy, merely discussing the complex moral issues concerning such matters.

That is how I feel too, bagitha - I have told my daughter but she says she would not risk imprisonment - I must check out the law in New Zealand , where I will be living in a few years.

I shall be grateful if someone can bump me off when I'm terminally ill and in great pain, or demented, and not get in trouble for doing so. I'd take it as a great kindness which, of course, it would be. You can call it what you like from mercy killing to euthanasia, but it would not be a wrongdoing if it prevents further anguish and ridiculous suffering.

Godwin's law - once someone introduces comparisons with Hitler/Nazis into an argument, the thread is doomed.
If someone has a religious agenda when discussing abortion, it would be honest to admit it.

I'm pretty sure that there has been more than one case of people who have been so called mercy killers of terminally ill or demented old people who have 'got off'. Can't remember names though.

helmacd Could you please quote a documented example of killing off old people that has crept stealthily into acceptability?

Why is anyone surprised? It's a natural extension to killing off old people which is creeping stealthily into acceptability. When abortion on demand ( even though in theory that's illegal in the UK. Pah!) became 'acceptable' we started down the slippery slope to viewing human beings as disposable. That will put us on a par with Hitler and other unsavoury dictators.

I doubt very much if many women find abortion easy, Apricot. Have you ever been in the position of being pregnant and desperate? Back street abortions killed or maimed thousands of women - didn't that cheapen life?
I do not accept your slippery slope argument - there is no connection between abortion and euthanasia, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

It's an ethical debate, not a call for infanticide-on-demand. As anyone can have an abortion on demand it's not going to happen.
I've always opposed easy abortion, it cheapens life and I'm sure that fairly soon the same arguments will allow euthanasia of the old, the terminally-ill and the profoundly disabled. Who should decide these grim matters? The church? Scientists? The Daily Mail?

I've been trying to get to grips with the whole concept of this particular issue, and found this article very grounding for such an emotive subject.

www.newstatesman.com/blogs/nelson-jones/2012/03/birth-abortion-infanticide

Carol I agree with everything you have said.

Gally, I think they over diagnose these days. With my daughter's first child they saw on a scan that one of GS's kidneys was larger than the other one. That meant that at about (if I remember rightly) eighteen months he had to have an exploratory procedure that was upsetting to him and stressful for the family. And yes, his kidneys were fine. No problems at all. All quite unnecessary. He was obviously, from the moment of birth onwards, a healthy, lively child. But, they had to stick to their set rules.

Hope your daughter doesn't worry too much, and all turns out well for her.

I agree ga there is no huge moral difference between a baby about to be born, at the top of the birth canal, and the same baby when it has emerged into the world, especially when that baby is getting towards full term and has been viable for many weeks. Neither should be killed.

Gally once again, as always, thinking of you and DD. xx

When I was expecting DD1 I was in my mid-twenties. I didn't have an amniocentesis test done, even though a patronising young registrar tried to persuade me it was my "duty" (arrogant prat!), because at that age I felt that even if I had a severely disabled baby, I would be able to cope. I had also been brought up in a catholic family and taught that it was my "duty" to cope. When I was expecting DD3 I was in my mid-forties. I had an amniocentesis test done because, by then, I wasn't at all sure I could cope with a disabled baby, nor that I necessarily "should". There is no simple answer to these things. That's what makes them moral dilemmas. If you have no philosophical doctrines – and on this subject in particular if you don't believe in the existence of souls – other than being kind and helpful to other people as far as you are able, there are very few simple rights and wrongs in life.

Ethical and moral issues in the field of medicine always need to be addressed and discussed. It's important.

I'm with ga, Ariadne and *Bagitha on this one.

Gally - what a difficult time you're having. I do agree about there being too much information sometimes. I hope the next news you get is good news. (((hug)))

Ariadne and Baggy - I was beginning to think I'd lost the plot - I'm so glad you 'get it' too.

Greatnan I was quoting Canadian/American law in response to Carol's comment. John Harris, a British philosopher, has argued that there is no huge moral difference between a baby about to be born, at the top of the birth canal, and the same baby when it has emerged into the world.

Joan, far from having a hidden ant-abortion agenda, one of the authors, Dr. Giuibilini, is actively pro-choice and has published to that effect.