Canadian Mother Wants the Right to Euthanize her 2 disabled children (enemy, support)

[rayneinspain]

Originally Posted by shorebaby

I was being ironic, both are equally wrong, but we see where you draw the line. Look out blue eyed folks.

Additionally you can't kill these to disabled folks, it's called muder, not retroactive abortion.

Terry Schiavo.

[SoCalCroozer]

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

Nope, I've been saying this whole time that I can't make a decision for this case based on limited information. Why don't you actually read my posts?

So a fetus with any disability at all you would abort? .

No not any disability. Comparing a fetus with down syndrome with say one who has 6 toes is completely different.

[shorebaby]

Originally Posted by bobtn

I would not call it murder, as again, mom can remove nutrition and its not viewed as murder, yet the result is the same. Add in the fact these two never had the functions to decide for themselves if they wished to simply exist, and yes, that is all they are doing.

It is muder, mom can't remove the feeding without a court order, unless she is the healthcare proxy.

Even if she could , it would be no less murder simply because it is state sanctioned.

[nimchimpsky]

Originally Posted by SoCalCroozer

No not any disability. Comparing a fetus with down syndrome with say one who has 6 toes is completely different.

Okay but a fetus with 6 toes, if that doesn't impact their life in any way, isn't really a disability. Would you abort a fetus with a disability that in any way impacts their life?

[shorebaby]

Originally Posted by rayneinspain

Terry Schiavo.

Nope, the court had to intervene. The husband was not allowed to kill her without court permission.

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by shorebaby

It is muder, mom can't remove the feeding without a court order, unless she is the healthcare proxy.

Even if she could , it would be no less murder simply because it is state sanctioned.

She would be granted authority to remove it, no doubt, given the circumstances.

[shorebaby]

Originally Posted by bobtn

She would be granted authority to remove it, no doubt, given the circumstances.

Maybe, maybe not. It still doesn't make it right or ethical.

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by shorebaby

Maybe, maybe not. It still doesn't make it right or ethical.

So only you define what is right and ethical?

[SoCalCroozer]

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

I care because if you were my mother, I wouldn't be here today.

I understand what you are saying but....... You wouldn't be here today and you'd also have completely no idea that you never existed. Your point doesn't make much sense.

So are you saying we should let nature take its course? Or do we only allow nature to take it's course in terms of life and not death?

[shorebaby]

Originally Posted by bobtn

So only you define what is right and ethical?

Nope, right and wrong are not relative. Taking the life of innocent people is always wrong.