Abortion.

[Death_By_Pod]

who are we to deny a life just because the father was a rapist?

 

 

 

We'll I'm not denying a life I'm more or less thinking of the psychological consequences between both, mother and child.

 

 

 

The mother will most likely not be able to bond with the child, which means an unemotional attachment. This brings great difficulty in a childÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s behaviour and emotional stability developing through the phallic stage.

 

 

 

The mother will most likely still have the lingering psychological problems in 9 months time when the baby is born.

 

 

 

The mother will then have to look at her child for the rest of her life and be reminded of the rape incident.

 

 

 

Also the mother might still be experiencing trauma which can last a life time depending on the person and might be unable to trust or to love again in a way that society can consider 'normal'.

 

 

 

When the child has misbehaved there is a higher increase in child abuse occurring. As when the child has offended the mother, the memory of being raped can be triggered. This means the kid can potentially be hit by the mother harder than what is socially acceptable and lawful.

 

 

 

I have counselled a woman who smothered her child to death with a pillow because the babies father was abusive and triggered off memories, yet alone rape.

 

 

 

When the child is born it will be neglected, (at least, that is I've never come across a mother who has been able to fully come to terms with having a rapists' child).

 

 

 

The child will already be emotionally unstable from it's upbringing by the time they find out their father is a rapist.

 

 

 

It increases the chance of mental illness, suicide, unstable relationships.

 

 

 

Personally, I would never want to see someone go through with it, mother or child.

 

 

 

If they want to have the baby that's their business, I won't get involved but I have personally seen a lot of nasty counselling visits with rape victims yet alone spawn of rape victims...

 

 

 

Wouldn't many of these things occur for women who aren't given a choice and are stuck with an unwanted baby?

 

 

 

I'm not arguing a POV here, just dialoguing on some thoughts I had:

 

 

 

Nobody can deny that from a biological point of view, sex serves to reproduce. Luckily however, we aren't just animals

 

 

 

We aren't just animals? Are we "super-animal"?

 

 

 

and so we've created other reasons to have sex. We also take emotions, love and pleasure into account.

 

 

 

We also take commitment and future consequences into account. Like having children in spite of contraception. At least I hope we would take that into account.

 

 

 

Also, people have created other reasons to have sex, like torture and humiliation.

 

 

 

But hey, if you only want sex to have kids, whatever floats your boat. You're missing out.

 

 

 

Even if you are only having sex to have kids, the pleasure is unavoidable. Just like if you are only having sex for pleasure, the children are unavoidable. I'm not really concluding anything, just throwing some thoughts out there, that may or may not make any sense.

 

 

 

You know we aren't the only animal to have sex for reasons other then reproduction right? Sex can provide a number of different functions which generally evolve into a useful social mechanism for enhancing survival.

[Nadril]

 

If a mother smothered her one day old baby because she could not support it, or if it were to have some debilitating condition, she would get the majority of her life in prison and be publicly crucified by media.

 

 

 

If a mother has her child killed one day before it's born, it's somewhat alright?

 

 

 

It is illegal to abort a baby 1 day before it was born. The legal limit is a few months, I think. The point is to abort it while it feels no pain and can not think for its self.

 

 

 

 

 

A zygote is a human being. We were all Zygotes. Did you magically turn from "non-human" to "human" by leaving the womb? We have evidence now of fetus' displaying heartbeats at only 3 weeks. Of sucking their thumbs at 6 (which if that is not a human behavior, you need an examination).

 

 

 

 

There is a period of time when a fetus is no more than just that, a fetus. It can't feel pain and is just some cells developing. It doesn't have any sort of thinking process.

 

 

 

 

 

This sounds more like a debate on eugenics. Find out your kid is not going to be born healthy, so you go ahead and "spare" him a lifetime of misery. Sounds noble, doesn't it?

 

 

 

I think you're grossly oversimplifying the situation here. If a kid is going to be neglected and die at a very young age it may be better to abort it at an age when it can not feel pain.

 

 

 

 

 

My brother died a day after he was born. I spent SIX WEEKS in ICU without a natural heartbeat. 22 years later, I am healthy as can be with no outstanding medical conditions. And yes, my family was doing very badly monetarily back then.

 

 

 

Thats great to hear you did fine but, honestly, anecdotal evidence isn't something that is worth anything to this discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

There are alternatives to abortion. You make every adoption center sound like freaking Oliver Twist. They are not. Most adopted children in this nation find loving parents, many don't even know about their adoption.

 

 

 

I am not aware of how good adoption facilities are so excuse my ignorance here.

 

 

 

 

 

Lets say couple A: A college couple where the girl gets knocked up after a drunken binge. Couple B: A middle-aged married couple, the wife is barren.

 

 

 

What scenario makes more sense to you? Couple A having their child killed in the womb because they don't want to take care of it? They don't wish their parents to know? Or for the girl to bring it to term, put it up for adoption and Couple B having the chance for a child.

 

 

 

Again this is a really simplified process. Chances are there are many, many children waiting to be adopted that are already living a poor life. Would it not make more sense to adopt one of them instead of having someone bring yet another child into the world, neglecting someone (who needs it) of an adoption?

 

 

 

I can simplify stuff as well you see. Point is though is that it is not that 'simple'. Chances are couple A has no idea about couple B or vice versa.

 

 

 

 

 

My argument summed up in one point: There are alternatives. Be more careful with sex, use better protection, "GROW UP" about pregnancy and deal with it (most mothers would not turn their backs on their daughters because they were pregnant), or heck, raise the child yourself!

 

 

 

Condoms can't break, right? :roll:

 

 

 

Yes there are alternatives and while condoms are very affective it is not a 100% garentee. There are some people out there who suffered from a broken condom. Should they have to bare the burden of a child because of a (less than 1%) accident?

 

 

 

 

 

Saying the mother can take care of it is incredibly simple as well. Many cases the mother is not able to care for a kid, she may be too old to be able to keep up with the high maintenance of a kid, work may not allow her enough time... the list goes on and on.

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, yes, in this fairy tale land where everyone is able to have some kind of amazing backup it makes more sense. The truth it however not everyone has someone waiting at their feet to adopt a child (because with all the children there are that do not have parents the chance of your child finding a family fast is slim) and not everyone has a kind, caring mother that will take your child and raise it correctly.

[assassin_696]

Yes, I have gotten emotional in this post. Abortion is single-handedly the only thing in this world that makes me white-knuckle pissed off. If someone would like to offer counterpoints, I'd love to cool down and answer. Hell, I could even do polls for you.

 

 

 

I think Nad's response to your post has covered what i'd have said and probably more, but i'm still curious why you it's "the only thing in this world" that really gets you going. Why?

[Kant]

It is illegal to abort a baby 1 day before it was born. The legal limit is a few months, I think. The point is to abort it while it feels no pain and can not think for its self.

 

 

 

We're not talking about whether or not abortion is legal. We're talking about whether it's moral. Thus I guess if you're a moral relativist your argument can't be anything other than "what I think is right is right for me", which is a pretty useless argument. The Law attempts to define what is moral but it does a poor job in my eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes there are alternatives and while condoms are very affective it is not a 100% garentee. There are some people out there who suffered from a broken condom. Should they have to bare the burden of a child because of a (less than 1%) accident?

 

 

 

If you think you're mature enough to have sex, then you should be mature enough to understand that condoms aren't 100% effective and should be mature enough to prepare for the consequences of one not working. Aborting is an example of what happens when someone hasn't prepared.

[Barihawk]

It is illegal to abort a baby 1 day before it was born. The legal limit is a few months, I think. The point is to abort it while it feels no pain and can not think for its self.

 

 

 

Leave the law out of this. Let's pretend the law doesn't exist. The stigma I am fighting here is that life begins at birth.

 

 

 

Yes there are alternatives and while condoms are very affective it is not a 100% garentee. There are some people out there who suffered from a broken condom. Should they have to bare the burden of a child because of a (less than 1%) accident?

 

 

 

There are plenty more alternatives than condoms. There is birth control, spermicides, and let's not forget the big anti-pregnancy, Abstinence!

 

 

 

People who are in a real relationship and wish to have sex without the risk of child would be using a combination. And I think it's ironic justice that you should have the burden of a child because you just had to "get laid."

[malo2]

I see nothing wrong with abortion, although It should have costs. I wouldn't want to see people carelessly getting pregnant because they can just abort.

[Faux]

I see nothing wrong with abortion, although It should have costs. I wouldn't want to see people carelessly getting pregnant because they can just abort.

 

 

 

I'd rather have the kids be aborted than be raised by bad parents and turn out to be another murdering lowlife because of it

[Hume]

It is illegal to abort a baby 1 day before it was born. The legal limit is a few months, I think. The point is to abort it while it feels no pain and can not think for its self.

 

 

 

We're not talking about whether or not abortion is legal. We're talking about whether it's moral. Thus I guess if you're a moral relativist your argument can't be anything other than "what I think is right is right for me", which is a pretty useless argument. The Law attempts to define what is moral but it does a poor job in my eyes.

 

 

 

Look at the issue in realist terms. An embryo at early stages is nothing more than a collection of cells developing together. It can't think, it can't feel and can't do anything which makes a human a human. If you choose to argue that this embryo has the capability of life then you can argue the same for sperm or unfertilized eggs. An embryo with the proper conditions to grow will become a human, and so will these two things that create life. Yet millions die on their way to hopefully fertilizing an egg, do we kick up a fuss for those who had the chance to become human too? Or the unfertilized eggs that go without fertilization? The law has the issue correct - an early embryo isn't human it only has the capability of becoming one.

 

 

 

I think very few people take the issue lightly, and it should not be. However a group of cells multiplying together and nothing else doesn't warrant taking the option away from people who arn't ready to take the responsibility of raising a child.

[Lenin64]

Yes there are alternatives and while condoms are very affective it is not a 100% garentee. There are some people out there who suffered from a broken condom. Should they have to bare the burden of a child because of a (less than 1%) accident?

 

 

 

There are plenty more alternatives than condoms. There is birth control, spermicides, and let's not forget the big anti-pregnancy, Abstinence!

 

 

 

People who are in a real relationship and wish to have sex without the risk of child would be using a combination. And I think it's ironic justice that you should have the burden of a child because you just had to "get laid."

 

and don't forget the forgotten birth control: the diaphram, or diaphragm, however it is spelled when it's birth control and not the thing your lung...many people dont use it, but it's there. In fact, it may mean the difference between a child from a broken condom and staying unpregnant, even if the condom beaks. still, of course, not 100%, but it does help.

[jackalope14]

I see nothing wrong with abortion, although It should have costs. I wouldn't want to see people carelessly getting pregnant because they can just abort.

 

 

 

Why do you think there should be a cost if nothing wrong is with abortion.

 

You obviously have some kind of problem with it if you "wouldnt want to see people carelssly getting pregnant because they can just abort". If you saw nothing wrong with abortion I wouldnt see a problem with carelessly getting pregnant and aborting.

 

 

 

Yes, I have gotten emotional in this post. Abortion is single-handedly the only thing in this world that makes me white-knuckle pissed off. If someone would like to offer counterpoints, I'd love to cool down and answer. Hell, I could even do polls for you.

 

 

 

I think Nad's response to your post has covered what i'd have said and probably more, but i'm still curious why you it's "the only thing in this world" that really gets you going. Why?

 

 

 

Its probably a good think that thats the only thing he gets pissed off about. A lot of people get "white-knuckle pissed off" at some trivial things.

[Kant]

It is illegal to abort a baby 1 day before it was born. The legal limit is a few months, I think. The point is to abort it while it feels no pain and can not think for its self.

 

 

 

We're not talking about whether or not abortion is legal. We're talking about whether it's moral. Thus I guess if you're a moral relativist your argument can't be anything other than "what I think is right is right for me", which is a pretty useless argument. The Law attempts to define what is moral but it does a poor job in my eyes.

 

 

 

Look at the issue in realist terms. An embryo at early stages is nothing more than a collection of cells developing together. It can't think, it can't feel and can't do anything which makes a human a human. If you choose to argue that this embryo has the capability of life then you can argue the same for sperm or unfertilized eggs. An embryo with the proper conditions to grow will become a human, and so will these two things that create life. Yet millions die on their way to hopefully fertilizing an egg, do we kick up a fuss for those who had the chance to become human too? Or the unfertilized eggs that go without fertilization? The law has the issue correct - an early embryo isn't human it only has the capability of becoming one.

 

 

 

I think very few people take the issue lightly, and it should not be. However a group of cells multiplying together and nothing else doesn't warrant taking the option away from people who arn't ready to take the responsibility of raising a child.

 

 

 

There's a difference between the potential an embryo has and the potential sperm and egg have. Left to its own, an embryo will develop into a child. Left to their own, sperm and egg will not develop into a child. The potential argument is a valid argument as long as you give a clear definition on where to draw the line. In my case, the potential for human life begins when, left to its own, the group of cells will develop into a human. I believe that is at conception. Sperm and egg will never come into contact if left to their own. You are merely attempting to blur the line and then attacking the argument; you're using a straw man refutation.

[Barihawk]

Now, I get angry at "trivial" things. The sight of same-sex couples kissing in public bothers me to no end (to be honest, I get annoyed when hetero couples do it). I get angry over various political/religious debates.

 

 

 

But abortion just absolutely makes me pissed off. I consider it to be murder with excuses.

[Defender2516]

To me, abortion is legal murder. And no technical political smart A$$es is going to change my mind.

 

 

 

The problem with abortion is too often people view it as a product, a thing that can be disposed of.. rather than a child awaiting to be born.

 

 

 

No matter what you do 1 month in to 3 months, you just threw a future childs life out the window.

 

 

 

Society would call it humane murder because its not "living" yet.. but then who are we to decided what should live and what should die.

 

 

 

~Defender~

[Hume]

It is illegal to abort a baby 1 day before it was born. The legal limit is a few months, I think. The point is to abort it while it feels no pain and can not think for its self.

 

 

 

We're not talking about whether or not abortion is legal. We're talking about whether it's moral. Thus I guess if you're a moral relativist your argument can't be anything other than "what I think is right is right for me", which is a pretty useless argument. The Law attempts to define what is moral but it does a poor job in my eyes.

 

 

 

Look at the issue in realist terms. An embryo at early stages is nothing more than a collection of cells developing together. It can't think, it can't feel and can't do anything which makes a human a human. If you choose to argue that this embryo has the capability of life then you can argue the same for sperm or unfertilized eggs. An embryo with the proper conditions to grow will become a human, and so will these two things that create life. Yet millions die on their way to hopefully fertilizing an egg, do we kick up a fuss for those who had the chance to become human too? Or the unfertilized eggs that go without fertilization? The law has the issue correct - an early embryo isn't human it only has the capability of becoming one.

 

 

 

I think very few people take the issue lightly, and it should not be. However a group of cells multiplying together and nothing else doesn't warrant taking the option away from people who arn't ready to take the responsibility of raising a child.

 

 

 

There's a difference between the potential an embryo has and the potential sperm and egg have. Left to its own, an embryo will develop into a child. Left to their own, sperm and egg will not develop into a child. The potential argument is a valid argument as long as you give a clear definition on where to draw the line. In my case, the potential for human life begins when, left to its own, the group of cells will develop into a human. I believe that is at conception. Sperm and egg will never come into contact if left to their own. You are merely attempting to blur the line and then attacking the argument; you're using a straw man refutation.

 

 

 

Then how do you contend that the sperm on it's way to the egg as not being similar to an embryo. That has the potential to become human. It seems your argument for distinguishing between the sperm and unfertilized eggs is "left alone they wont produce a human" but sperm on it's way to an unfertilized egg left alone does have the chance to create a human. It simply dies on it's way to the egg, and so according to your argument it's no different from an embryo as far a potential is concerned.

 

 

 

You are drawing the line at what you concieve as "human" because "left on it's own it will become human". Which is not true because it depends on another human - an embryo gets the needed nutrients, develops and lives through that person. I would agree with you, if the case was that 'left alone it would grow' but it's wrong.

[Kant]

I would agree with you, if the case was that 'left alone it would grow' but it's wrong.

 

 

 

What if I rephrase "left alone" to "without unnatural intervention"?

[Hume]

I would agree with you, if the case was that 'left alone it would grow' but it's wrong.

 

 

 

What if I rephrase "left alone" to "without unnatural intervention"?

 

 

 

Then thats a different meaning which to me means very little. You are not clearing up your definition of what you consider to be "human" because you have not yet responded to my first paragraph.

[assassin_696]

Kant vs. Hume, I never thought i'd see the day. :P

 

 

 

Kant, as I've said earlier in nearly all my posts an embryo that has just been conceived left to its own devices will not become a human being. It needs its mother for the first 20 weeks or so, although generally it needs the mother for much longer, hence why 48 weeks is the normal pregnancy duration.

 

 

 

That's Hume's point, a sperm also has the potential to form a human being, but it need an egg to fertilise. Where can you draw the line? I don't think you can from a point of pure reason or logic, so we need to be realistic and realise that in some cases it is far more sensible to allow an abortion and benefit the quality of life of the parents, than to bring a child into a world of suffering and pain based on the logic that a conglomeration of cells should be considered a human being with the same rights as a fully developed, genuinely seperate one.

 

 

 

Now, I get angry at "trivial" things. The sight of same-sex couples kissing in public bothers me to no end (to be honest, I get annoyed when hetero couples do it). I get angry over various political/religious debates.

 

 

 

But abortion just absolutely makes me pissed off. I consider it to be murder with excuses.

 

 

 

I suppose you're just more conservatively minded than I am. Personally, I don't care what couples do in public as long as it's not indecent or illegal.

 

 

 

Look, at the end of the day, we can sit around talking about this all day and reasoning and stuff, but we're not actually making these decisions. From what I know, people don't actually go around having abortions as a form of contraception taking them lightly. I think it's a hard decision to come to, even if you are pro-abortion and I genuinely believe that the people who have them, have them for good reasons. I don't think we can criticise these couples, or mothers for coming to this kind of decision, because it's rarely something come to lightly. Abortion clinics are hardly drivethroughs, there are conditions that must be met in the UK which I think are adequate, and fair.

[kelem_ryu]

I would agree with you, if the case was that 'left alone it would grow' but it's wrong.

 

 

 

What if I rephrase "left alone" to "without unnatural intervention"?

 

 

 

Then thats a different meaning which to me means very little. You are not clearing up your definition of what you consider to be "human" because you have not yet responded to my first paragraph.

 

 

 

roflmao! Kant and Hume discussing. Splendid!

 

 

 

Immanuel, David you are lost in detail there.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr Kant, i have a question: Can you explain to me, why killing an unborn baby as soon as you would consider it human isn't moral?

 

 

 

Kant vs. Hume, I never thought i'd see the day. :P

 

 

 

Kant, as I've said earlier in nearly all my posts an embryo that has just been conceived left to its own devices will not become a human being. It needs its mother for the first 20 weeks or so, although generally it needs the mother for much longer, hence why 48 weeks is the normal pregnancy duration.

 

 

 

We got a very interesting point here. The embryo needs it's mother to develop. The mother however is a being able to make and execute choices. Especially Kant should agree, if i'd say it would statisfy the category imperative to let every person choose to accept or reject people in need.

[Midala87]

Abortion is one of the many topics that could be discussed for generations on end with no right conclusion.

 

 

 

I am pro choice on this matter. However I do not believe abortion should be taking lightly.

 

 

 

It is okay to abort IF the child is a threat to the mother

 

AND/OR

 

The fetus is at a state of unresponsiveness to its environment. (this has NOTHING to do with the Terry Shivo case. Totally different matters).

 

 

 

Research has been done that at a certain stage of development the fetus does respond to its enviroments. Such as when music is playing. They do kick back, even if they are unaware of it.

 

 

 

After all, dont we do things in our sleep without knowing about it?

 

Just because it feels no pain does NOT mean its safe to kill it.

 

If I were to give you something so that you cant feel any pain, would it be legal to kill you then?

 

 

 

END OF OPINION

[kelem_ryu]

Abortion is one of the many topics that could be discussed for generations on end with no right conclusion.

 

 

 

 

Only because people tend to get so emotional on this subject.

[kelem_ryu]

I also do belive that abortion, pregnancy and babies are the resposibility of women. I'm totally against forcing a man to pay allimente. Making sure mother and baby have enough money is the responsibility of the state not of the father. Ideally mother and father will be close enough that this issue doesn't even arise. Not everything is ideal though.

 

 

 

Guh. Thanks for single-handedly warping us back in the middle ages. Just because women carry children, does not mean they're the only ones responsible for the conception and education of the kids. Men need to share some of the responsibility unless we want them to cheerfully spread their seed wherever they see fit.

 

 

 

I'm a guy btw.

 

 

 

That is bloody obvious.

 

 

 

You missed my point. Everybody can choose their partner, so i can't "cheerfully spread my seed" to the woman who doesn't decide me to be fitting. Also women have a) more means for birth control and B) knows when a condome is used. A man doesn't know if she really uses the anti baby pill (correctly) ("you don't need a condome, i'm using the pill anyway." does she? how am i supposed to know?). A man can't decide to abort. Seeing that women have way more control over the whole progress they have more responsibility.

 

 

 

If the parents don't live together and the child stays at only or mainly with one of them, then the one the child lives with obviously is responsible for the childs education. Okay i put it somehow misleading. Nobody should be forced to pay allimente. I think it should be the responsibility of the state, to make sure it's citizens have enough to life of. As soon as the child is born it's a citizen after all. However you shouldn't be able to force somebody to pay for the child. If you would have given it to child care, nobody would have to pay, but if one of the parents keeps the child all of the sudden the other parent can be forced to pay.

 

 

 

And here is my point again. The mother can choose to carry the baby to birth. The father can't. I mean for all i know a woman could trick me into making her a baby and then force me to pay allimente just out of spite. I couldn't do that. It would be technically impossible.

[Kant]

Mr Kant, i have a question: Can you explain to me, why killing an unborn baby as soon as you would consider it human isn't moral?

 

 

 

It depends on what you consider a moral action to be. So explain to me what you consider to be a moral action, and then I will answer your question.

 

 

 

Kant, as I've said earlier in nearly all my posts an embryo that has just been conceived left to its own devices will not become a human being. It needs its mother for the first 20 weeks or so, although generally it needs the mother for much longer, hence why 48 weeks is the normal pregnancy duration.

 

 

 

That's Hume's point, a sperm also has the potential to form a human being, but it need an egg to fertilise.

 

 

 

Right, but a sperm doesn't have fully human DNA. Neither does an egg. Does an embryo?

 

 

 

 

 

Where can you draw the line? I don't think you can from a point of pure reason or logic, so we need to be realistic and realise that in some cases it is far more sensible to allow an abortion and benefit the quality of life of the parents

 

 

 

This is a false dilemma. You can't know that the quality of life of the parents will be worsened by going through with a pregnancy.

 

 

 

than to bring a child into a world of suffering and pain based on the logic that a conglomeration of cells should be considered a human being with the same rights as a fully developed, genuinely seperate one.

 

 

 

Another false dilemma, one that I have already addressed in previous posts.

[Led-Zeppelin]

What it comes down to is, you may think it is wrong, but it needs to be legal for the mother own safety. If it were illegal, I'm sure plenty of people would seek out other methods of abortion. Go to some seedy abortion centre run out of someones house, in a unsterile environment. Where he will probably prod you with a rusty coat hanger. Or get someone to kick the crap out her stomach.

 

 

 

Now, all you pro-lifers, what would be a greater crime to let die, a fetus which doesn't know it's [bleep] from it's a-hole. Or a young woman, too scared to deal with a child she would never be able to care for, who didn't have the right facilities avaliable to her?

[Nadril]

What it comes down to is, you may think it is wrong, but it needs to be legal for the mother own safety. If it were illegal, I'm sure plenty of people would seek out other methods of abortion. Go to some seedy abortion centre run out of someones house, in a unsterile environment. Where he will probably prod you with a rusty coat hanger. Or get someone to kick the crap out her stomach.

 

 

 

Now, all you pro-lifers, what would be a greater crime to let die, a fetus which doesn't know it's [bleep] from it's a-hole. Or a young woman, too scared to deal with a child she would never be able to care for, who didn't have the right facilities avaliable to her?

 

 

 

Excellent point!

 

 

 

Like some things even if abortion were illegal people would still have it done. Imagine, your young and after a wild night find out you are pregnant. People don't think well under pressure, and she might be pressured to going to a shady place.

 

 

 

Its much better to have facilities open for those who need it. Its much better than losing both the fetus and the parent.

[meb]

There are the following cases of unwanted pregnancy:

 

 

 

1. Rape

 

2. Accidents

 

3. A handicapped baby

 

 

 

In case 1, it's pretty clear. Abortion.

 

 

 

In my opinion anyone who won't allow an abortion in cases 2 and 3 is a very narrow-minded person. The 16-year old couple had a little accident. You want to ruin that young woman's life so a fetus that hasn't even reached a state of conciousness can live. And what life will it have? A desperate teenager that can't enjoy being young any more as mother. Yay. If your baby has a serious handicap, it's in my opnion the best to end that life as soon as possible. You want to give your child a life of joy, not of constant misery because he/ she can't see, can't walk, etc. Is it cruel? To me it isn't. It doesn't know anything, so why not start over and give a child a life everyone can enjoy?