[damd]

I figured that they 10% was until the first birthday, at which point it would still have half a heart. The heart that would go to this baby, I might add, would be preventing someone else from living, as there is a massive shortfall in the quantities of organs available.

Life is not simply black and white, it's a whole greyscale, there is essentially no true-wrong and true-right, there are so many factors that go into every outcome that it will never be so clear cut. Saying "where do you draw the line", even though it's a difficult question, doesn't invalidate the theory behind it. One might ask where to draw the line sending people to prison, it is a sliding scale with no truth or wrong, but that doesn't invalidate it.

I thought you thought foetus' were alive from conception? And what about this then: you find a recently birthed calf, with a leg coming out of its face, completely disfigured and would find living life truly impossible, it is clearly in pain. Would you kill it? Or allow it to enjoy and reflect upon it's lucky life in this world?

And what are their chances of survival? What are their stories? They are just more babies of self parents who should have aborted at the first sign that something was wrong, not normal.

That is why I called it a spectrum. Yes one end defines the other.

It points out to which point a person views that a life is worth living as if someone has that right to make that determination.

It is alive from conception but that does not mean it has experience a "life".

If we were talking about a human baby we would not terminate it, we would surgically remove the deformity. Again this points towards a scarry world were if you are not normal you are dead. Forget medicine, find a cure by terminating the patient. Yeah, I want to live there.

[anonymouswhitefemale]

It's no different then how a person would view anyone not willing to give their child a 10% chance at life.

I figured that they 10% was until the first birthday, at which point it would still have half a heart. The heart that would go to this baby, I might add, would be preventing someone else from living, as there is a massive shortfall in the quantities of organs available.

Life is an array or spectrum of opposites. It is how we define what everything is. The yin and yang. What is joy with out sorrow, light with out darkness ect... Some people get to see one side more than the other. It's no ones fault it is what it is, life. Your preposal is again and again to deny someone of a life that you think is too hard, too unbearable. Where do you draw the line? How much suffering warrents, no life?

Life is not simply black and white, it's a whole greyscale, there is essentially no true-wrong and true-right, there are so many factors that go into every outcome that it will never be so clear cut. Saying "where do you draw the line", even though it's a difficult question, doesn't invalidate the theory behind it. One might ask where to draw the line sending people to prison, it is a sliding scale with no truth or wrong, but that doesn't invalidate it.

I do agree with your last statement. If I saw an animal that was injured with no chance of survival I would end it's suffering as well. Speed up the death that is coming. The difference here is that animal lived.

I thought you thought foetus' were alive from conception? And what about this then: you find a recently birthed calf, with a leg coming out of its face, completely disfigured and would find living life truly impossible, it is clearly in pain. Would you kill it? Or allow it to enjoy and reflect upon it's lucky life in this world?

[damd]

I would suggest that any level headed, unselfish woman, who knew that her unborn child had less than 10% of survival and also taking into consideration that her child would suffer from birth to death (no matter what time scale that was on) - i would in fact terminate the pregnancy. Its just the way i see it....it would break my heart to terminate a pregnancy that was planned, but if it meant that my child would be in pain after birth (and quite possibily through the final stages of pregnancy)...then i would abort.

I dont see how a life is a life when its full of discomfort and sorrow?

Im my eyes, its like leaving an animal that is in pain to die slowly.... lets take a rabbit with Myxomatosis (Myxi), suffering quietly by the side of the road or wherever, i wouldnt leave it there...i would hit it behind the head, snapping its neck and end its suffering humanely. Hmm, but then am i playing God?

It's no different then how a person would view anyone not willing to give their child a 10% chance at life.

Life is an array or spectrum of opposites. It is how we define what everything is. The yin and yang. What is joy with out sorrow, light with out darkness ect... Some people get to see one side more than the other. It's no ones fault it is what it is, life. Your preposal is again and again to deny someone of a life that you think is too hard, too unbearable. Where do you draw the line? How much suffering warrents, no life?

I do agree with your last statement. If I saw an animal that was injured with no chance of survival I would end it's suffering as well. Speed up the death that is coming. The difference here is that animal lived.

[miffed23]

a selfish act would be to abort to only save themselves of the pain and grief of losing a child, thereby not giving someone the only chance they had at a life.

I would suggest that any level headed, unselfish woman, who knew that her unborn child had less than 10% of survival and also taking into consideration that her child would suffer from birth to death (no matter what time scale that was on) - i would in fact terminate the pregnancy. Its just the way i see it....it would break my heart to terminate a pregnancy that was planned, but if it meant that my child would be in pain after birth (and quite possibily through the final stages of pregnancy)...then i would abort.

I dont see how a life is a life when its full of discomfort and sorrow?

Im my eyes, its like leaving an animal that is in pain to die slowly.... lets take a rabbit with Myxomatosis (Myxi), suffering quietly by the side of the road or wherever, i wouldnt leave it there...i would hit it behind the head, snapping its neck and end its suffering humanely. Hmm, but then am i playing God?

[damd]

I would hardly say that 10% is equal to 0%. I will admit those are not the best of odds however, but one can only do the best with what they are given. As for being selfish I think not, a selfish act would be to abort to only save themselves of the pain and grief of losing a child, thereby not giving someone the only chance they had at a life. So we differ on our philosophical views that any life is better than none, however my view allows the person's who life is in question to make that judgement on their own whereas the other does not. The other is an arbitral decision is an infrigement on the most basic and inalienable of human rights.

[sourpuss]

Ah, it is good that they didn't waste a heart on an impossible venture. However, that means that this baby was brought into the world with zero chance of suvival. Before it's brain had even started developing it was know that it would suffer and die. Even if it lived a year it would still be funked.

And so they got to meet him, touch him, and love him - that all sounds rather selfish to me. An inability to let go and make the right decision causing a short life of suffering and death to something that didn't deserve it. All of this reeks of the parents shattered emotional state rather than what was best for the baby. Instead of letting something that you love go, for it's best, you drag it through life, teaching it the world of pain, hopelessness, futility, tears and death. I don't believe that any life is better than no life.
[/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Well said. I agree.

[anonymouswhitefemale]

Last, a heart was never wasted as he never recieved a donor. His odds were never 50/50 I believe they were more 10/90 that he would not live a year. The point was that his parents gave him that 10% and gave him the best chance he could at life. And they loved him. If she would have had an abortion, they would never have met him, never touched him, that even though their time with him was full of sorrow they loved him every minute of it and would never trade it in for anything.

Ah, it is good that they didn't waste a heart on an impossible venture. However, that means that this baby was brought into the world with zero chance of suvival. Before it's brain had even started developing it was know that it would suffer and die. Even if it lived a year it would still be funked.

And so they got to meet him, touch him, and love him - that all sounds rather selfish to me. An inability to let go and make the right decision causing a short life of suffering and death to something that didn't deserve it. All of this reeks of the parents shattered emotional state rather than what was best for the baby. Instead of letting something that you love go, for it's best, you drag it through life, teaching it the world of pain, hopelessness, futility, tears and death. I don't believe that any life is better than no life.

[CHANDLERS WISH]

So if she still has an abortion, then I would be extremely disappointed but it would never change my love for her.

That my friend is what you call the main key of the word LOVE... You love someone un-conditionally regardless of the "choice" she makes in life, either agreeing or disagreeing with you, the person whom bought her into the world.

Babies, that's interesting, had me thinking as usual.

I think babies minds, from really the day that they are "born", settle, off course have brains, they have to breathe to start with, but little white witch that i am, i also believe that they are extremely, extremely perseptive, they have to be it's called survival, whilst making silly mistakes like putting their hand on a heater, but never doing it again, as they then know "hot", but also to the point of having imaginary friends, that they claim they can see and talk to, which most would say, imagination.. But, is it....?

Different subject..... but as i said, bought a thought.

CW

[damd]

See, the problem that I see with this, aside from the fact that all the baby really saw was suffering (it was too young to understand that some people it didn't know "loved" it and that this force was stronger than the pain etc. The MAIN problem being that it was relatively speaking quite a waste of a heart, that would have saved someone else. You know, until we can master cloning, organs are nigh on impossible to get, and to bring a life into the world for a half-shot at life with a transplanted organ doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I guess it is as the arguement the other way is to me.

As for your comment about it didn't know love, I like not to think so. Babies I can speak about mine, never cease to amaze me. You might think that they do not understand you but their minds are like sponges, they absorb everything. It does not take long for a baby to make a connection between screaming and getting what it wants, let it be food, a change, a burp, or just to be held. Emotions are a complicated thing and maybe baby's brains are not as developed to process all that goes into an emotion but I do believe that they do have them. I know that they can show anger at a very young age I do have to believe that they can feel love as well.

Last, a heart was never wasted as he never recieved a donor. His odds were never 50/50 I believe they were more 10/90 that he would not live a year. The point was that his parents gave him that 10% and gave him the best chance he could at life. And they loved him. If she would have had an abortion, they would never have met him, never touched him, that even though their time with him was full of sorrow they loved him every minute of it and would never trade it in for anything.

The bold statement isnt correct - a woman is fertile for approximately 72 days a year...so she is fertile for much more than a whole month, thats what i was getting at.... although im not entirely sure why....

Anyhoo, youre not going to back down, neither am i... you have your beliefs and i have mine

But, i am curious to know, what you would do if your daughter - (i gather you have 2 children, so lets be hypothetical and assume one is female...) told you that she was pregnant and didnt want to keep the baby for her own personal reasons...How would you react? Surely, youre role as a father would be to support your child in her decision? What do you think?

Actually it wasn't a bold statement as it was more an error in grammer. I should have said the whole year or even the whole month (a whole month? whatever) as I was reffering that I woman was not fertile all 30 or 31 days in a month.

As for the hypothetical scenario... First I hope never to face that situation. I am sure the subject of abortion will come up in her upbringing and I hope that I can install into her that abortions are wrong that more than just murder like all crimes against children it a crime against the most innocent. That it will rob someone of a life of experiences that no one knows what this person could have become. That the victim here even though is a stranger would be her own flesh and blood.

So if she still has an abortion, then I would be extremely disappointed but it would never change my love for her.

[miffed23]

Here is something else though, a women is not fertile a whole year or even a whole month.

The bold statement isnt correct - a woman is fertile for approximately 72 days a year...so she is fertile for much more than a whole month, thats what i was getting at.... although im not entirely sure why....

Anyhoo, youre not going to back down, neither am i... you have your beliefs and i have mine

But, i am curious to know, what you would do if your daughter - (i gather you have 2 children, so lets be hypothetical and assume one is female...) told you that she was pregnant and didnt want to keep the baby for her own personal reasons...How would you react? Surely, youre role as a father would be to support your child in her decision? What do you think?