Wow...I guess it was kinda inevitable, though. We can keep more people alive, and treat more conditions, and prolong life, much better than we used to be able to...I'm assuming that babies with the conditions they mention would have shortly died, in the past. It seems in large part a question of, "Just because we CAN save and prolong a life, SHOULD we?"
I mostly found it ironic that it's usually the anti-abortion people saying stuff like this, with the opposite intent: “We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?”
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-11-11 05:13 pm (UTC)I mostly found it ironic that it's usually the anti-abortion people saying stuff like this, with the opposite intent: “We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?”