Today's random rage...

[conuly]

First we get the disabled girl who was sterilized and given hormones so she'd stay small (so she'd be easier to care for, an admirable goal, no matter how dubious the decision - and this is pretty damn dubious), naturally without her consent....

And just when you're getting over the WTF-ness of that....

Doctors: let us kill disabled babies (actual title!)

I haven't even gotten past the title yet. Taken a gander at the "related articles" section, with such gems as "Haunted mother who backs mercy killing" and "It's your right to die if you want to". Mind, I tend to agree with the second, disabled or not (though adding in proper help first, because it is a shame to up and kill yourself without a better reason than most seem to have), but it hardly applies to babies. I mean, let's say that word again - b a b y.

It's like we never left the dark ages. At least they were more honest about it, just stuck their unwanted children outside.

Comments

[raleighj.livejournal.com]

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?”