ShadesOfMe wrote:
I would say no. If they want these children, (erm, child?) Then they should go ahead with it. They will have a lot of problems though, and the fetus is already being exploited, so obviously the baby will be. It's probably best if she does abort it. It has an extremely small survival rate to begin with!
The value of life is not a numbers game.
I read a book by a brain surgeon who successfully separated conjoined twins
at the brain, which twins obviously had terrible odds against their survival. But now, both kids live normal lives. And,
more importantly, they survived. If they had stayed joined, they wouldn't be worth any less.
So, the odds being against someone surviving is no reason to throw in the towel early, and kill them.
That would be employing a false logic at
great cost.
In starving countries, the odds are against people living. Should they, therefore, all be killed in your opinion?
Of course not, and furthermore you'd be a horrible person to think so.
It was the ghastly-cruel character Ebenezer Scrooge who coldly said of the poor and indigent: "If they would rather die, perhaps they had better do so, and decrease the surplus population." Is that how you think of unfortunate people?
Maybe Aspies are worth less than NTs, huh? I'm saying just pick a standard and
stick to it. Don't be a hypocrite.
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.