I believe that you should be able to "abort" your baby until it's one(x) years old :) If the baby comes out being totally fucked and has no chance of getting a normal life, you should be able to dispose of it in the hospital within it's first year of life. There, I've said it. If this was another site I'd be downvoted to hell and back, but that's what I think is reasonable. The baby isn't iven aware of its existance.
I'd agree with this. The potential for abuse is there, admittedly, but I doubt it would be over-used. A parent who is willing to do this without a damn good reason shouldn't be a parent anyway.
Not to sound rude or anything, but I call BS. Babies that are less than 12 months old RARELY string sentances together, and if they do they have no idea what they mean. Even "mama" and "papa" is just sounds to them. Unless he has a really high vocabulary IQ. Babies arent self-aware until 16 months or so. That doesn't mean they can't feel anything, but the baby wouldn't have understood anything if it would have been killed by a needle. And btw. Im not talking about healthy kids here.
I would take that a step further. I believe that most people who are mentally retarded/ severely disabled and that cannot serve a function (such as research) should be euthanized, as I see them a drain on limited resources. I honestly don't see how the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I've worked in a retirement home, and the condition that some of the residents are in it seems cruel to leave them like that. I also feel that the people who advocate against euthanasia are just in denial that will happen to them, and a cure will come along and save them.
That's funny. I would argue that if one can't find a suitable research agenda for even the most retarded of people, then they aren't trying hard enough.
That is certainly a controversial opinion. The smile after the first sentence scares me somewhat. I would argue that in a country with modern medicine, any 'legitimate reason' (and I am not sure what that would be) for terminating a life should be able to be identified at a much earlier stage. Therefore, I would suggest mandatory screening for life inhibiting conditions at X weeks into pregnancy would be a more suitable alternative. Following the same line of thought, what about those who suffer life inhibiting conditions at a later stage of life (degenerative diseases/brain damage etc)? Should others be able to take their life from them?
Haha sorry about the smile :P I'm not "that guy", but I just had to put it there because it's so controversial. About your next thought: I'm not really sure, I think that people who are unable to respond to anything in any way might aswell die. A friend of mine just got a kid which looks like quasimodo and has a serious braindamage, why would "we" keep that alive? It's not really beneficial for any part. I also have a relative who is mentally and physically retarded after a diving-accident, he just sits in a chair blinking his eyes. If that was me I'd rather be killed, and I feel that it might have been better if he died in that accident.
Wow, that's a legitimately controversial opinion. I might agree, up to a point. However, a year might be pushing it, a lot of development has already happened by then. In general though, if a baby is going to have a terrible life, due to poverty, disorders, whatever, that seems reasonable. After adoption has been attempted. I feel like a terrible person now.