The average mother in the developed word gives live birth to less than three children in her lifetime. With the depletion of our resources that is more than enough.

Over her reproductive age every woman produces about 350 eggs each capable of being fertilised. In the prime of her life almost in every case an aborted fertilised egg can be replaced at some later date. At least early in a pregnancy a woman has the right to decide if a baby is the best decision for her, particularly if the potential child is genetically defective.

It is strange that many of those who oppose abortion are the philosophical descendants of the people who murdered so called witches (many of whom were only affected by rye flour poisoning) and who have had to be dragged reluctantly into accepting any scientifically verifiable discovery that failed to match their dogma. Many thinking, competent, people paid with their lives for confronting dogma.

The sensible limit to abortion is that no one has the right to inflict pain or disadvantage on a conscious personality. The foetus, throughout pregnancy, is not a conscious personality.

We need to get our priorities right. All pro-lifers should ask themselves what is their personal priority between unborn foetuses and the 20,000 plus children who die each day because we do not feed or house them adequately or did not provide adequate birth control measures to their parents.

Similarly a terminally ill person should be able to determine the time and place of his or her last breath.

I do not know the author's religious conviction. My own view is that one person's religious persuasion should have no influence over another adult’s life nor should religious people be free to indoctrinate young minds.

Foyle,

I generally agree but would eliminate the word in brackets below,,

"I do not know the author's religious conviction. My own view is that one person's religious persuasion should have no influence over another adult’s life nor should [religious] people be free to indoctrinate young minds

This guy needs to read his bible a bit more, there a very clear prohibitions about disabled people in his little black book.
Lev.21:17-23
Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. ... Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries.

I think we need to be realistic here. Down Syndrome babies in reality get aborted not for reasons of preventing their suffering. They are aborted because their parents in most cases don't want a disabled child (i.e. for selfish rather than altruistic reasons).

Once you sanction the abortion of some classes of disabled unborn children or their later infanticide , the question arises of where do you draw the line.

It is only short step to reach the Nazi conclusion, based on eugenics, that all disabled or genetic inferiors should be forcibly sterilised or (worse still) exterminated.

If it were known in advance that Stephen Hawking was likely to develop motor neurone disease, would Messrs Dawkins and Singer have recommended that his mother have him aborted?

To take a clumsy statement of Dawkins’, foolishly made via a medium that only allows 140 characters per comment, and then run with it without addressing his clarification (http://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar), is dishonest.

The worth of a foetus or baby, disabled or not, is a side issue. No-one has the right to live at the expense of someone else’s body, and foetuses should not possess rights that are denied to the rest of us.

Well said Bren!
What's missing in this morally bankrupt argument is the fact, we can if we choose, alter or replace the sometimes missing genetics that cause many genetically transferable conditions; i.e., Alzheimer, dementia, downs syndrome, moronic stupidity/political incompetence?

And indeed, actually create a vastly superior human/alter a still living one!
Stronger, leaner, faster, brighter, more cognisant and less affected by the wear and tear of aging, which in reality, is a breakdown in normal rejuvenation, also reversible, with GM?

And all preferable to stilling a beating human heart!
I mean the argument that a fetus is unaware throughout the full term, could be extended into early infancy outside the womb/the frail and aged!

We seem to have little problem or remorse stilling a beating human heart, but balk at the genetic modifications that might fix many problems permanently!
Why?
Because that would be playing God! And terminating "lessor" humans isn't?
Jawol?
Don't bury the problem; fix it!

All well and good to talk about disability and what it might cost us or the parents.
But what of the cost of (reversible)aged care?
As opposed to healthy, spritely, totally self reliant oldsters that need none of it; or cupboards of pills!?

And how much more could we evolve or advance, if we could keep our Einsteins alive and well; and effectively contributing for a further 50-60 years?
Or failing that, far better able to care for the Grandkids, when or if mum needs to go back to work!
Or, retain mental faculties, still elastic enough; to not only learn new disciplines, but keep up with the kids!

What would be lost if we knew what we know now, and had our current maturity, wisdom and judgement at an effective 18-19? Well?
Rhrosty.

"The high rate of these abortions is in large part due to the prevalent belief that the life of a person with a disability is not as valuable as one without."

Is it?

How do you know this?

Personally, I take the biblical attitude. A baby is not a "living soul" until it takes its first breath. Up till that point, the parent have every right to flush it.

Indeed, from the bible we learn that fathers basically own their children, up to and including the right to offer them as a human sacrifice to Jehovah - Abraham, Jephthah, and of course God himself, who human-sacrificed his own son to himself.

As always, when it comes to ethics religion doesn't really have any credibility. A God who drowned his own children in a universal flood really has no business telling other people what they matt do with their own.

A.J.Phillips.
I completely concur, and should I see a fetus marching down any street, intent on inserting itself into an unwilling human host, I'll crack it over the head to prevent that possibility!

All lewd levity aside, if said fetus is the product of informed consensual behavior, why should it pay with its life, because mummy forgot to take a pill, or D.H. daddy forgot to call in at the chemist/local supermarket, to pick up a packet of condoms; or that mummy was just too lazy or too stupid, to take a (available over the counter at many chemists) morning after pill!?

Actions always beget consequences, and if you can't accept the consequences/responsibilities, don't take the action, what ever it may be!
And there should be a good medical reason to abort a completely normal healthy baby/still beating human heart; rather than, as a "family planning" convenience!

In some primitive cultures, there seems to be evidence of infanticide?
That being so, should we just wait until the baby is born, to see if it's normal or "wanted" and then if considered convenient, just bash its head against a rock; always providing, we aren't asked to witness the act or be asked to dispose of the remains, which could be dumped down any convenient storm water drain!?

I mean, funerals are just so expensive; and anyway, we're talking about a still unaware life form!
And, is there any real difference between that form of infanticide/waste disposal, and our so called legal abortions; given both actions are completely insensitive and may still a beating human heart; and flush the remains!
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty,

Your hypothetical scenario is invalid.

A small child needing a kidney transplant didn’t choose to come into this world either, but that doesn’t mean that the mother should be forced to donate a kidney if she can. Why does a foetus have special rights here?

The child requiring a kidney transplant is at least self-aware and potentially conscious of the consequences of not receiving a donor kidney. They are capable of feeling fear in what might happen and relief that they can live, in the event that they receive a donor.

The rights of the person/foetus requiring the body of another to survive do not trump the rights of the one who can provide the support required. It’s that simple.

My point still stands.

That A.J.Philips person speaks rubbish, whats the side issue? The question is does a Downs Syndrome baby deserve to be allowed to live? Course they are. There may be lots of problems for the parants because of the babys been slightly disformed, but medical science has made a lot of advances therefore theres plenty of help. To kill a baby because of Downs Syndrome sounds very much like my old country, or Nazi Germany or the CCCP 35 years ago. You sound like a heartless fool A.J.Philips!

Misanthrope,

Clearly you haven’t understood a word of what I’ve actually said.

I have not suggested that anyone kill down's syndrome babies. Of course down’s syndrome babies deserve to live. So do foetuses whether they’re disabled or not, for that matter. But no-one deserves to live at the expense of someone else’s body - with total disregard to whether or not the owner of that body wants it.

As someone who apparently expects that women be forced to carry their pregnancies to full term against their wishes, I would think that you were the heartless one. So please take your emotional outbursts and Godwin’s law elsewhere.

No Misanthrope he is not a fool, we human beings are no different to the animal world ,of course there are those who would disagree with that comment, animals discard their young if deformed, most people have that same gene if left in their natural state, but we are civilized and should not do that, society says so, most deformed people end up in institutions for others to look after, having seen many people with deformed huge heads having to be turned in bed, as they cannot do so, that person would have been better aborted, we can all say that is wrong but would we be prepared to look after that person, it is easy to say yes we would, what bunkham.

Quite the contrary Bren, I see the woman who continues with a pregnancy, despite knowing the child will be severely disabled as the "selfish rather than altruistic" one. This is particularly so if there are other children, or more planned.

I have seen a number of families torn apart, & other children very restricted in their opportunities as the mother lavishes love, time, attention & money on her "special" child.

We are already struggling to provide adequately for all the people on earth now, without adding more that will require the full time services of another to support them. It is this selfishness of breeding women that adds far too much stress on others, a stress they have no right to impose just to satisfy their urge to breed.

Dear Bren,

<<Once you sanction the abortion of some classes of disabled unborn children or their later infanticide , the question arises of where do you draw the line.>>

So fortunately, it is not for you and me to draw the line, but for the parents, so each set of parents acts according to their own level of morality.

We are all accountable to God, no escape from that, but parents should not be accountable to society regarding their children, born or unborn, until and unless they appealed to society to give their child a legal status.

This usually occurs when the mother is admitted to hospital to give birth, especially if it is a public hospital, and signs forms to the effect that she doesn't have to pay for it herself, but Medicare would foot the bill. Otherwise it occurs the first time the child is taken to a doctor, say for immunisations, or to a public (or partially publicly-funded) child-care or kindergarten, or when the parents seek family-benefits from the government. On top of that, I even suggest a facility whereby parents can elect to give legal status earlier to their yet unborn child.

However, in those rare cases when no assistance whatsoever was asked from the state in regard to a child and a request for a legal status was never made - neither by the father, nor by the mother, nor by the child herself, nothing should legally prevent the parents from doing with their own child as they like.

Socially of course, you have every right to feel contempt towards parents who kill their child, born or unborn, and every right not to befriend them, nor even to speak with them or trade with them or work with them, etc. However, from a legal point of view, the onus to draw red lines regarding the morality of others or the lack thereof, should not fall on us or on our political representatives.

Yuyutsu

You are missing the point.

Neither the article nor my remarks were adressing the issue of abortion or infanticide per se. At issue was the statement that "It is therefore right, says Singer, to abort a baby with a disability and try again for a 'normal' child".

The right or otherwise to choose was not the main issue. Instead I was arguing against the idea that parents OUGHT TO abort any unborn child expected to be born disabled.

This is an interesting article, but it makes two assumption that I disagree with.

The first is that we can judge how much society values a person by how likely that class of person is to be aborted. This is a plausible relationship: societies that value male over female children and allow gender-based abortions, for example, tend to have a higher proportion of male babies. But it is not a necessary one. I’d guess that poor single women are more likely than middle-class married ones to have abortions. This reflects how much harder it is for them to raise children, not that society values their children less. I would guess than many Down syndrome foetuses are aborted because of greater financial, emotional, time and family pressures of raising a Down syndrome child, and the uncertainty about how they will fare when their parents can no longer care for them. I admire mothers who love and care for their Down syndrome children, but I would hesitate to judge one who decided not to bring a Down syndrome foetus into the world.

The second, which lies at the heart of most variations in the abortion debate, is at what point one becomes a person. This does not mean that we “judge personhood by capacity” as Vaughan claims – A Down syndrome child is no less a person than everyone else. But a foetus, with Down syndrome or not, is not a “person”. The seemingly harsh criteria of utilitarianism – what quality of life would this person have? what burden would they be on their families and the wider community? – may be appropriate when considering whether to abort a foetus, but have no bearing on the rights and respect we owe a child.

all I can say is thank God that Richard Dawkins and Singer (supporter of bestiality) are not God. Their self righteous indignation and lack of compassion just shows how vile one's mind/heart becomes when you deny your Creator.

Dear Bren,

<<The right or otherwise to choose was not the main issue. Instead I was arguing against the idea that parents OUGHT TO abort any unborn child expected to be born disabled.>>

Oh my, I am sorry! I was not even aware that such disgusting ideas go around.

To quote bible scripture about blemishes in order to defend the right to abort unborn babies, is unacceptable. God's sanctity of human life is clear from His Word, science proves the viability of humanness within the womb, and disabled people evince their worth in far greater ways than some able-bodied humans. All of us are made righteous who believe in the Lord, the old life passes and the new comes. So many possibilities of a purpose-filled existence for everybody.

When a woman is pregnant, all manner of urgers come out from under their rocks to influence her to comply with their often odd even jaundiced world views.

It is a time of unique vulnerability. It seemed that every time I left my wife alone there was some nag in her ear heaping on the guilt over something or other. You get the lot and often it is almost invariably other women, some who claim 'professional' expertise and 'knowledge' who are the worst enemy.

It is a time when the man must be steadfast, an anchor in a troubled sea.

I entreat all young couples contemplating children to agree from the outset that they will rely on the GP and medical specialist first and last, and that well in advance they will fully inform themselves on the scans available and plan for them.

As well, very few women(?!) and even fewer men comprehend that the best years for childbirth are in the mid-twenties. Having children later is fraught with all sorts of serious risks that multiply with age. While the media might showcase a celebrity who has a (reportedly) healthy child later in life, the odds are very much against it, so get the priorities right and heed Nature.

Mothers should advise their sons not to waste nice young women's years too, but that is another thread.

Part 1
“Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say”

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012
Daily Telegraph

The Article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics created a furore around the World.

The two ethicists argued that rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

But what is all the fuss about? It is a logical question to be asked. As the majority of people gradually accept the "truth" of the ideology preached by Professor Dawkins et al, that life has no other meaning than what man himself makes of it, and that there is nothing beyond life, then surely in our human overpopulated finite world we have to deal with such matters logically.

Part 2
With any other animal, or plaque we choose to cull to protect the diversity of species and resources, or dispose of the unwanted. Why shouldn’t we do the same with the human species? If they have no economic value or are going to be a cost, then it makes sense to kill off those that will be a burden on a family or a society. Also it would be more humane for that individual. After all it makes sense to cull out the weak and non productive animals in commercial circumstances. We could reduce the already immense social costs that excess, especially useless human beings impose on the taxpayer. Further with our aging societies around the world and the extension of lives beyond their useful economic life except where people have created sufficient wealth not to be a burden, culling would seem appropriate. . In nature the weak and infirm are usually killed, and man is part of nature. Unlike in nature, man with his evolved intelligence has developed the means of killing humanely.

The arguments of the two ethicists is in line with the philosophy that is becoming increasingly pervasive in modern life and which is dominating the secular world. Since Professor Dawkins and those of similar mind have militantly launched atheism as a philosophy to determine all aspects of human life, it is inevitable that society will suffer the consequences, even if the consequences not intended by those same learned people.

The atheistic materialistic philosophy (ideology) developed by Marx and Engels in the 19th century wrought untold human misery in the 20th through rise of Communism (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc). The 19th century materialistic philosophical works of Nietzsche undoubtedly influenced Hitler and the rise of Nazism, again producing untold human misery in the 20th. I am sure that those thinkers who were influenced by the social disorder and ferment of societies during their time would have not fully comprehended the dire consequences for humanity of the influence of their works, even Marx.

Part 3
The consequences of modern individualistic atheism are more subtle, compared to the class or race uber-menschen (or at least interpretation) based mass philosophies of the 19th century which saw the atrocities of the 20th century.

Basically it preaches that 'life' has no other meaning than what man himself makes of it himself, and that there is nothing beyond life. In which case, despite whatever humanitarian principles those altruistic atheists may propose, many of their brothers and sisters become quite totalitarian minded. Another inevitable consequence is, 'life' will be interpreted in a very utilitarian manner. Then all acts from abortion to infanticide, euthanasia right through to genocide for the culling of excess humans in our overpopulated world, to the humane killing of those who are not or are no longer economically productive, are logically sound even though some atheists might feel squeamish about going this far.

So I agree with Bren

Dear Bagsyl,

<<Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion>>

From a legal point of view, I agree.

From a moral point of view, I don't.

Even while the babies could be "morally irrelevant", the act of murdering them is nevertheless very morally relevant and sinful.

However, the state is not the guardian of morals and has no moral authority to prevent those who behave immorally from doing so. Those who kill others, be they human or animal, born or unborn, will surely pay a heavy price for it, whether in this lifetime or thereafter, but that's a matter between them and God - it's nobody else's business.