PDA

View Full Version : [split] The Good and Evil of Abortion



Kaiser
Tuesday, February 6th, 2007, 10:24 PM
...cheating in any form is alright, because it is a contract which can be broken.

(I believe in abortion especially for those who are too stupid to control procreation on their own)


This makes me sad for two reasons:

1. I would hope that Germanic couples would be more honorable to one another in a relationship than to cheat on one another. If one or both no longer wants to be together or wishes to pursue another mate, fine. But at least do it all above board honorably with open communication and not behind the back cheating. Please end the relationship you are in amicably with your Germanic partner before surreptitiously cheating.

2. Not to open the whole debate on abortion here, but I happen to be an expert in this field having previously worked in an educational capacity dealing with the issue of abortion and having studied its various methods in gruesome detail. Suffice it to say that NO current method of abortion takes the pain of the infant into consideration. Furthermore, I worked in an animal hospital and we euthanized many different types of animals from time to time. Even there, we did take the pain felt by the animal and its emotional well being into consideration while administering lethal measures. That is only humane. I would hope that in the future mankind, and especially Germanics, would at least come to the consensus that if we are going to kill unborn babies, we at least do so in an humane as way possible with the stress and pain of the infant taken into consideration as well. That's all.

Airmanareiks
Tuesday, February 6th, 2007, 10:37 PM
NO current method of abortion takes the pain of the infant into consideration. .



What is your earliest memory?
Mine is about 6 years old.

A baby does not feel pain at that young of an age. Because it does not have self conscoussness. Self Consciousness or the ability to FEEL pain really does not happen until after infancy. Certainly, a fetus does not feel pain nor does a ant feel pain when you step on it. Should we call one a murder if you kill a insect? Its the same thing because a fetus and an insect do not have self consciousness.

Kaiser
Tuesday, February 6th, 2007, 11:21 PM
What is your earliest memory?
Mine is about 6 years old.

A baby does not feel pain at that young of an age. Certainly, a fetus does not feel pain nor does a ant feel pain when you step on it. Should we call one a murder if you kill a insect? Its the same thing because a fetus and an insect do not have self consciousness.

That is scientifically and clinically proven false. Infants most certainly have developed pain receptors. Therefore they feel pain. And they demonstratively react to the application of pain as evidenced by actual findings. Such as their screaming in the womb as I have witnessed on ultrasound and attempting to curl up and swim away from surgical devices ripping their limbs apart and tearing their intestines and genitalia off. Mind you, this is all observed while they are all still a B.A.B.I. ---Before Actual Birth Infant--- or "fetus". Littleless, after they are actually born and up to six years old. That is why we have child abuse laws my friend. And why a baby screams when pain such as scalding hot water is applied to her flesh or she falls down and breaks a limb.

Comparing Germanic children and infants to insects is ludicrous. Your obvious lack of even basic scientific study in this field is woefully apparent by the sophomoric arguments your erroneously present here. Until you study these things in more detail, I highly suggest you just stick to opining how you advocate cheating on your Germanic mate. Which is ethically repulsive in and of itself.

Airmanareiks
Tuesday, February 6th, 2007, 11:30 PM
Cool down.
You must be a Jesus lover with a different ethic.

It is ludricous to believe that a fetus, or entity of 3 months are less, can actually feel pain and REMEMBER IT.

With your theory, you must be a Jianist who believes that it is evil to step on insects because they feel it.

If you are a Jianist fine. I am not.

Now if the world was UNDERPOPULATED then I agree. We need at the people we do. But OVERPOPULATION is going to destroy the earth (Greenhouse effect) and we will all be burned alive because there are too many people here. Ever hear of carrying capacity? It the foundation of biology. We have exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth and thus will destroy it because of views like yours.

Further, in your Jesuit/Jiaist world, the lowest forms of life would outbreed the better/more self restrainted species. Thus, today you see the stupider, non aryan races growing while the highest quality estates, dimensh.

Without being too harse, you view is going to destroy the world. Now who is intelligent and who is naive?

Kaiser
Tuesday, February 6th, 2007, 11:51 PM
Cool down.
You must be a Jesus lover with a different ethic.



you must be a Jianist who believes that it is evil to step on insects because they feel it.

in your Jesuit/Jiaist world

Now who is intelligent and who is naive?

Halt with your name calling now Mister!

Re-read the posts. I simply advocated humane approach to infanticide being agreed upon rather than a torturous one. I never wrote anything about memory of pain. That's all on you. Now you go off the deep end about "Greenhouse" effect and sustainable living theories. I know all about those theories and more. Did you know that the earth's temperature was actually warmer during the age of the dinosaurs eons ago? Were the T-Rex and their buddies driving around in SUV's then? Besides, it is the third-world "developing nations" who the same liberals prop up who are doing massive damage to our environment and we are paying the price for it.

And what about the false liberal cries that we are all going to flood due to the polar icecaps melting? Ever see ice melt? Ice displaces more surface area than water already due to the molecular structure of the ice crystals. Therefore, if anything, we would gain coast as is seen in Northern Germany on the dikes there. (I know. I lived on one.)

Just a few decades ago the same liberals were using scare tactics to have us believe we were creating an ice age. It is all about mass hysteria and the control measures the elites can then oppose upon the masses and our Western industry.

Do we need to clean up the environment? Ja. Do we need to clean up the gene pool? Ja. I have advocated these things all along. But your illogical and unscientific analysis are embarrassing to this forum.

And your false assumptions about my religious/social/scientific beliefs will not be tolerated.

Airmanareiks
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 12:07 AM
Calling the Kettle black. You started the name calling by deriding my education "sophmoric" which justifies to assume that you are a Jianist or Jesus lover based on your morality. But calling someone a Jesus lover is not name calling. Its the same as if a Jesus lover called me a "pagan" or a "heathen". You may be offended by the name, but do not believe Jesus was "christ" being he never existed. Jesuits or Jesus lovers is how I view what you call "christianity" but like they don't call me an Aryanist, a Odinists, a panentheist, which is an accurate description of my religion, I do not have to call them by THEIR prefer appelation. Its not name calling but a descriptive view, which another thread would be more appropriate to debate the issue.
________________________________________ __________

Where are the dinosaurs now?
They are extinct like everyone is going to be in the future (may take thousands of years but it will happen due to exponential growth of populations and civilizations which consume energy).

Do you know that the oceans are rising every year?
Do you know that the earths tempature is rising?

At some point, due to overheating (humans emit 60 watts of power just living, plus consumtion of fuel) and destroying oxygen resources (diminshing ratio of heat consumption to oxygen generation) LIFE will be destroyed, unless you stop:

Population Growth (you first need to find a sustainable carrying capacity. What is the number? The earth's carrying capacity may only be 100 million). You may have to drastically reduce the population from 4 billion to 100 million to save the planet.

If everyone thought as you did, Life will be destroyed. That is a fact.

Back to your pain theory.

You feel more pain knocking your knee against a table then a 1 month year old "fetus" feels.
According to your Jianist theory, it is worse to knock your knee against a table then destroy a non reflective being like an insect. A rat probably has more self consciousness then a 1 month fetus. So you would outlaw the killing of rats in the world (no more insecticides or exterminators). See how your view leads to a serious wasteland. Pacifism is obviously the view. Being I don't see killing lower life forms or even (enemies) wrong, I have no problem with stepping on ants, the killing of rodents in houses, killing fetus, nor killing of human enemies when it is JUSTIFED. Thus, there is no serious sin created if it is justifed by evaluating the future costs/benefits of those actions. The greater good.

Leofric
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 12:17 AM
This thread is a split from the following thread:
http://forums.skadi.net/cybersex_cheating-t89701.html

Let me also take this opportunity to remind all parties involved to treat one another with proper civility.

Æmeric
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 12:34 AM
Let me also take this opportunity to remind all parties involved to treat one another with proper civility.
When talking about abortion :wtf? Maybe this discussion should be moved to the Free Speech Forum.

Boche
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 12:57 AM
I'm annoyed by the people who say: "You can't abort, the baby is alive inside the womb."
People have different views on it. Since i cant remember my time in the womb, i'd say that i was just a lifeform which was feeded by the mother throughout her body. And not a living with feelings and memory.
All those people who are against abortions concerning "humanity" are just indoctrinated by catholic doctrine.
Same goes also for those sick neo-christians who say that extremly diseased babies by birth shouldnt be put to eternal sleep.
Later they mostly die in their extreme disease situations anway and jsut have suffered more. Of course the baby can't decide. But i would feel bad as parent to let it live and die after a few months of pain and suffering.

And at all, the woman may only decide if it will be aborted or not, since she has to carry it out.




Gruß,
Boche

Lissu
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 01:12 AM
What is your earliest memory?
Mine is about 6 years old.Mine is from 2 years of age.


A baby does not feel pain at that young of an age. Because it does not have self conscoussness. Self Consciousness or the ability to FEEL pain really does not happen until after infancy. You are wrong. a newborn has fully developed nervous system and is very able to feel pain. In fact I believe infants feel everything more intensely because they have the same amount of nerves than adults, but in smaller package. The baby screams his/her lungs out right after being born because of the pain, it's very painful, and propably also traumatic experience to come through the birth canal. However, life is pain, and some pain is necessary.



Certainly, a fetus does not feel pain nor does a ant feel pain when you step on it. Should we call one a murder if you kill a insect? Its the same thing because a fetus and an insect do not have self consciousness.Depends how well the nervous system of a fetus is developed.

----

Considering abortion, a fetus becomes a human being with human rights after it's capable of surviving outside the womb. But womens rights to decide the fate of the fetus ends at 14 weeks. If there's some malformations of the fetus, then it's fate can be decided even later.

Leofric
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 01:15 AM
When talking about abortion :wtf? Maybe this discussion should be moved to the Free Speech Forum.

No, I have faith in the good members of Skadi to maintain decorum while discussing the topic. I know the general public tends to get overheated about the issue, but I think we can be above that here.

Æmeric
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 01:27 AM
I'm annoyed by the people who say: "You can't abort, the baby is alive inside the womb."
People have different views on it. Since i cant remember my time in the womb, i'd say that i was just a lifeform which was feeded by the mother throughout her body. And not a living with feelings and memory.


Do you have any memories of you first year of life? If not then I guess you were just a lifeform, like a houseplant or mold. Can you remember anything between the ages of 1 and 2? If not then I guess you were not yet a "human". At what point does a fetus/infant become a human being according to your logic? At birth? Is it okay to abort a fetus at six months? Is it okay to murder a day-old infant born three-months premature?

Leofric
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 01:46 AM
Is it okay to abort a fetus at six months? Is it okay to murder a day-old infant born three-months premature?
This is a great pair of questions that I think anyone discussing abortion should have to answer. If they differentiate between the two, then they really have to show why.

For my part, I treat them the same — I think it's usually wrong to kill either one of them, but I also think there could be cases where the killing of either would be fully justified.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 05:19 AM
I can remember circumcision and it was not a pleasent memory. My next memory is my father asking me how old I was and holding up two fingers. Young children can remember and feel pain.

As for cheating, nobody is perfect and it may be wrong to judge people in absolute terms, but, one should enter a long term relationship with the intention to be faithful and to wake up every morning with that intention.

Kaiser
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 09:48 AM
My first memory was sitting around with all my millions of brothers and the next thing we knew we were shot up this long tube. It was dark but I started swimming like hell. We were all trying to get to this huge warm orb. I don't know why. It just seemed like the popular thing to do. I guess I won the contest because the next thing I knew, my tail started to disappear and I grew these funny looking arms and legs. I kinda just hung out for about 9 months then they pulled me out of my comfy spot and spanked my ass. I have been pissed off ever since.

Erzherzog_Bernd
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 10:29 AM
What is your earliest memory?
Mine is about 6 years old.

I was 1year and 18days old when my Mother gave birth to my Brother... I can remember everything.

Perhaps some just have a better memory than others, or perhaps those with worst memories don't have a conscious?

Hm, I wonder if society should abort you? Cut you up in pieces and then when we're done put the pieces next to each other to see if we removed all of you? We'll even start slow...just for you so that you can really feel those instruments cutting into your flesh.



A baby does not feel pain at that young of an age. Because it does not have self conscoussness. Self Consciousness or the ability to FEEL pain really does not happen until after infancy. Certainly, a fetus does not feel pain nor does a ant feel pain when you step on it. Should we call one a murder if you kill a insect? Its the same thing because a fetus and an insect do not have self consciousness.


That is scientifically and clinically proven false. Infants most certainly have developed pain receptors. Therefore they feel pain. And they demonstratively react to the application of pain as evidenced by actual findings. Such as their screaming in the womb as I have witnessed on ultrasound and attempting to curl up and swim away from surgical devices ripping their limbs apart and tearing their intestines and genitalia off.

Exactly! It has been shown that a fetus reacts and even tries to escape in order to save itself.

Ironically enough the US actually admits that these fetuses are human life. They go by the right to protect ones privacy under the 14th Amendment. Privacy? So far as I know, no non-entity or animal can invade humans privacy, that would require another human.

The 14th Amendment then is the right to kill another person or in this case baby, seeing as it would protect the women in her decision to "abort" a child ie Commit Infanticide.

Another interesting point would be if a pregnant women was attacked and killed. The perpetrator in question would then by law be charged on two counts of murder, one for the women and one for the baby in her womb. True or not?

In that case, why is that baby not a baby when the mother makes a choice to kill that baby?


I'm annoyed by the people who say: "You can't abort, the baby is alive inside the womb."

People have different views on it. Since i cant remember my time in the womb, i'd say that i was just a lifeform which was feeded by the mother throughout her body. And not a living with feelings and memory.

Did they or did they not show that babies can recognize things that occurred while they were in the mothers womb?

I saw a documentary on "life" that looked at the development of a child since conception until the birth of this child. What they did was play certain music to the child while in the mothers womb, when the child was born the baby recognized that specific music which was played. Just like the child recognizes the voice of it's mother as the mother was either talking "to" the baby or with someone else(Seeing as the child can only really decode its own mothers voice).

Memories or just mere animalistic recognition patterns? Like a dog that recognizes that to sit would equate to getting a doggy treat?


All those people who are against abortions concerning "humanity" are just indoctrinated by catholic doctrine.

Now I know why you're against Christianity, it's just a little bit to humane. How "shocking".


Same goes also for those sick neo-christians who say that extremly diseased babies by birth shouldnt be put to eternal sleep.
Later they mostly die in their extreme disease situations anway and jsut have suffered more. Of course the baby can't decide. But i would feel bad as parent to let it live and die after a few months of pain and suffering.

This I can agree with, more or less.


And at all, the woman may only decide if it will be aborted or not, since she has to carry it out.

Gruß,
Boche

I don't agree with this, seeing as women in general can't even make proper choices when it comes to something as simple as applying make-up onto their plastic faces.

Who on earth would give a women the right to make a choice over the well-being of a living entity?

Kaiser
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 10:38 AM
Calling the Kettle black. You started the name calling by deriding my education "sophmoric" which justifies to assume that you are a Jianist or Jesus lover based on your morality. But calling someone a Jesus lover is not name calling. Its the same as if a Jesus lover called me a "pagan" or a "heathen". You may be offended by the name, but do not believe Jesus was "christ" being he never existed. Jesuits or Jesus lovers is how I view what you call "christianity" but like they don't call me an Aryanist, a Odinists, a panentheist, which is an accurate description of my religion, I do not have to call them by THEIR prefer appelation. Its not name calling but a descriptive view, which another thread would be more appropriate to debate the issue.

First, I never called you names. I said that your unscientific statements were sophomoric. They still are.

Second, I never brought religion into this debate. You did. You have no idea my religious beliefs. Those here on Skadi who have seen my posts know that I place Race above religion and nationality every time. In fact, it has been mainly christians who have been offended by some of my statements in the past. Funny you should call me a jesus lover.

Besides, you are even historically wrong on the existance of jesus.



Where are the dinosaurs now?
They are extinct like everyone is going to be in the future (may take thousands of years but it will happen due to exponential growth of populations and civilizations which consume energy).

What in the world are you arguing now? That the dinosaurs went extinct because they did not have enough abortions? Overpopulation has never been a credible scientific hypothesis for the extinction of the dinosaurs.


Do you know that the oceans are rising every year?
Do you know that the earths tempature is rising?

The ocean is not rising in Northern Germany. It is lowering. It has been lowering for hundreds of years now. How do you explain that? And as I said before, the planet was warmer long before man stepped onto the scene. How do you explain these global warming/cooling cycles over these eons?


At some point, due to overheating (humans emit 60 watts of power just living, plus consumtion of fuel) and destroying oxygen resources (diminshing ratio of heat consumption to oxygen generation) LIFE will be destroyed, unless you stop:

Population Growth (you first need to find a sustainable carrying capacity. What is the number? The earth's carrying capacity may only be 100 million). You may have to drastically reduce the population from 4 billion to 100 million to save the planet.

Hahahaha. Now human body heat is the problem. What a joke.


If everyone thought as you did, Life will be destroyed. That is a fact.

Your opinions are far from "fact" my friend. And you have no clue how I think on environmental concerns or population control based upon my advocation of not TORTURING unborn babies during abortions. I simply stated that for or against abortion, we as noble Germanic Volk can come up with at least as humane treatment of our offspring as we as a society expect to treat a mad dog being put down with euthanasia. Where are you fabricating all these other accusations from?


Back to your pain theory.

You feel more pain knocking your knee against a table then a 1 month year old "fetus" feels.

Documented scientific research as to pain receptors being present and reaction to pain is not a "theory". And what is a "month year old fetus" anyway? Never heard of one. What is your reference to a knee being bumped against a table pain threshold versus the pain felt by an unborn baby getting ripped apart or its flesh melted off with saline solution? I have actually watched the reaction of babies being aborted on ultrasound monitors and their reactions. What is your credibility here? Give us some empirical data to back up your outlandish claims. They insult the Germanic intellect.


According to your Jianist theory, it is worse to knock your knee against a table then destroy a non reflective being like an insect. A rat probably has more self consciousness then a 1 month fetus. So you would outlaw the killing of rats in the world (no more insecticides or exterminators). See how your view leads to a serious wasteland. Pacifism is obviously the view. Being I don't see killing lower life forms or even (enemies) wrong, I have no problem with stepping on ants, the killing of rodents in houses, killing fetus, nor killing of human enemies when it is JUSTIFED. Thus, there is no serious sin created if it is justifed by evaluating the future costs/benefits of those actions. The greater good.

Wow! Now I am a Jianist pacifist who would have the world overran with rats according to you? Where are you coming up with this nonsense? If it will make you feel any better, if I were elected Kaiser, I would gladly authorize your euthanization for failing to grasp basic debate, reason, logic, and scientific facts.

For the "greater good" of course.

EQ Fighter
Sunday, March 4th, 2007, 06:54 PM
My Opinion on Abortion is this, Since I am a male, I do not support it. Primarily because it has been used as a weapon against men in regards to reproduction.

But here is an option, since it has already been assigned as a right for women, the right should be universal, IE men should have the same right.

As far as overpopulation, being a problem; that is simply ridiculous.
With the current advances in technology, and the potential for the opening up for space flight in the next few centuries, there is no upper limit no human population. If human society cant or will not develop these technologies they deserve extinction.

The future belongs to those who are brave enough to seize it and move forward.

Bridie
Friday, March 9th, 2007, 04:36 AM
Primarily because it has been used as a weapon against men in regards to reproduction. How??


But here is an option, since it has already been assigned as a right for women, the right should be universal, IE men should have the same right.
Men should have the right to force women they impregnate to have abortions against their will? :oanieyes

Tryggvi
Friday, March 9th, 2007, 04:57 AM
This is a great pair of questions that I think anyone discussing abortion should have to answer. If they differentiate between the two, then they really have to show why.

For my part, I treat them the same — I think it's usually wrong to kill either one of them, but I also think there could be cases where the killing of either would be fully justified. Can you give a few examples of such cases?


Considering abortion, a fetus becomes a human being with human rights after it's capable of surviving outside the womb. But womens rights to decide the fate of the fetus ends at 14 weeks. If there's some malformations of the fetus, then it's fate can be decided even later.Why 14 weeks and not 13 or 15?

I just wonder if this is any less arbitrary than legislation saying the age of consent shall be 14, 15, or 16 years.

Leofric
Friday, March 9th, 2007, 05:21 PM
Can you give a few examples of such cases?
Sure. My wife and I were talking about it just a week ago, actually.

I think that if a child is so seriously deformed, either before or after birth, that it will be stuck in one of those special wheelchairs drooling on itself all its life, it'd be better to kill it. Though that kind of life is great for a dog, I think a dog's life is no good for a man. I think children that are that deformed probably only get born because of our advancing medical technology and the Hippocratic philosophy underpinning our medical industry — I think it's a case where our technology has given us the ability to do things we were never meant to do.

If a child had some defect that left it healthy for now but that would kill it within a few years in some horribly long and painful way and there were no cure for the defect, then it also seems to me it would be better to kill it, either through abortion or infanticide. It would only have a few years to live anyway, and you could see to it that it dies relatively quickly and painlessly.

If a child has some serious weakness that would let it live, but would keep it from having a normal life (like a girl I once saw on a documentary who would burn up and die if she were exposed to sunlight), then I think infanticide or abortion would be understandable and justifiable from a eugenic perspective (rather than the euthanasiac perspectives I've just treated). Personally, I wouldn't choose to do that to a person, but I also wouldn't feel right calling someone a criminal who did do that.

In all these cases, the choice between abortion and infanticide should be based, I think, on the health of the mother. If the mother would have better chances of survival and of staying fertile through one method rather than the other, then I think that's the method that should be chosen. A fertile adult woman is the most important human life in any situation, I think. A child — especially an infant — has potential to grow up and contribute to society, but is largely an unknown quantity. A fertile adult woman is a known quantity, and is known to be good for the survival of our species. So the choice between infanticide and abortion should be made based on the effects either would have on the mother, which I suspect would vary from case to case.

Of course, our laws as currently constituted don't allow infanticide, so I don't think we should practice it at all unless we get the law changed first.

Tryggvi
Saturday, March 10th, 2007, 03:35 AM
Sure. My wife and I were talking about it just a week ago, actually.

I think that if a child is so seriously deformed, either before or after birth, that it will be stuck in one of those special wheelchairs drooling on itself all its life, it'd be better to kill it. Though that kind of life is great for a dog, I think a dog's life is no good for a man. I think children that are that deformed probably only get born because of our advancing medical technology and the Hippocratic philosophy underpinning our medical industry — I think it's a case where our technology has given us the ability to do things we were never meant to do. Such kind of wheelchairs?

http://www.businessworld.in/archive/010122/stephen%20hawking.jpg

Are we talking about physical deformations only, with no extraordinary, unbearable amount of pain involved? Would it in such cases not be better to wait at least the 16 to 21 years, until the affected person can make her own mature decision whether she considers her life worth living?

I'm not sure if there isn't a certain amount of danger involved that we project our ideas of life quality onto others. There was this case of a sportswoman who had a bad accident causing a severe neck injury; thereafter, she was paralyzed from the neck downwards. She didn't consider her life worthwhile living anymore, but as she could neither use her arms nor her feet it was difficult to commit suicide. Finally, her mother, having been advised by her doctor, prepared a poisonous drink for her daughter which the latter drank with a straw, setting an end to her own life. Her mother was sentenced for aiding and abetting suicide what raised the question in the media and amongst politicians once more, whether euthanasia under certain conditions should be permissible.

In any case, having lost the ability to move every limb on her body was a major catastrophe for this physically active woman, but would it be for everyone? Losing our eyesight would probably also be a catastrophe for me or you, but for those who are born blind, it's not that much of a big deal. They grow accustomed to it and don't really understand what they are actually missing, even when they are told later that there is such a sense as "seeing." They compensate for it to a large extent by focusing significantly more on their remaining senses, in particular hearing and touching, and it might be difficult for us to envision, how much we actually neglect the training and conscious use of these senses in our eye-centered world.

In their daily routine, those who are blind since birth don't miss seeing all that much, because seeing never entered their world and they never grew accustomed to it. If they miss it, then to a large extent because we construct most of our environment and infrastructure for people who are able to see. To express it somewhat exaggeratedly, they might miss it as much, as we miss the bat's ultrasonic sense in the dark. It would be cool to have it, but we manage without.

Closing the analogy, my point thus is that somebody that sits in a wheelchair since birth will miss moving not as much as the sportswoman I mentioned above. Surely, once the child sees his fellow same-age companions running and playing football, there will be sadness, but nobody ever claimed that life is fair and without distress. And this is not to say that such a life is necessarily not worth to be lived. Most people sitting in such chairs do not choose to end their lives, and probably not exclusively because of lack of opportunity. There's always a way if there is a will. Given all this, do we maybe not owe them at least the decency that they can make their own decision about their own life, instead of deciding for them that the life they will have to live is not worth living?


If a child had some defect that left it healthy for now but that would kill it within a few years in some horribly long and painful way and there were no cure for the defect, then it also seems to me it would be better to kill it, either through abortion or infanticide. It would only have a few years to live anyway, and you could see to it that it dies relatively quickly and painlessly. What if the diagnosis was wrong? What if, because of a specific gene the child is carrying, unknown at that time, the defect would never break out and affect said child? What if medical research coincidentally finds a cure within a few years?

In general, given the graduality of the assumption: why not let the child enjoy the relatively healthy and pain-free time it has got, until death becomes preferrable to life? Would you put your dog to sleep now if you learned it had a defect that will kill it within a few years?

Aren't we disposing of human life far too quick here?


If a child has some serious weakness that would let it live, but would keep it from having a normal life (like a girl I once saw on a documentary who would burn up and die if she were exposed to sunlight), then I think infanticide or abortion would be understandable and justifiable from a eugenic perspective (rather than the euthanasiac perspectives I've just treated). Personally, I wouldn't choose to do that to a person, but I also wouldn't feel right calling someone a criminal who did do that. How can infanticide in this case be justifiable from an eugenic perspective at all given the principle of proportionality (choosing the mildest means that still reach a certain aim)? Legal (sufficiently deterring laws) or medical methods (sterilization) to avoid procreation would be sufficient.


In all these cases, the choice between abortion and infanticide should be based, I think, on the health of the mother. If the mother would have better chances of survival and of staying fertile through one method rather than the other, then I think that's the method that should be chosen. A fertile adult woman is the most important human life in any situation, I think. A child — especially an infant — has potential to grow up and contribute to society, but is largely an unknown quantity. A fertile adult woman is a known quantity, and is known to be good for the survival of our species. So the choice between infanticide and abortion should be made based on the effects either would have on the mother, which I suspect would vary from case to case. I probably agree with the thesis behind these words, but in none of the examples you gave about infanticide the life of the mother, or, given the possibility of putting the child up for adoption, her potential of staying fertile and having more (healthy) children was endangered.

Jäger
Saturday, March 10th, 2007, 07:47 AM
Are we talking about physical deformations only, with no extraordinary, unbearable amount of pain involved? Would it in such cases not be better to wait at least the 16 to 21 years, until the affected person can make her own mature decision whether she considers her life worth living?

I'm not sure if there isn't a certain amount of danger involved that we project our ideas of life quality onto others.
You are switching responisbilities here, even implying that there would be no decision by the parents at all.
New born children, healthy or not, can't live without an active decision by someone else to support it, thus choosing child abortion is not projecting ideas on others, these ideas are simply justifications for people who need to put their mind at ease.
The decision must be made. If a child is handicapped, deciding against it ( rather than supporting it for 16 or 21 years, and all goes down the drain when it kills itself ) means a new chance for the couple to put their focus on another attempt for a healthy child.

It's about the parents, or any society who decides to raise a child, not the child itslef with its individual demands.

Tryggvi
Saturday, March 10th, 2007, 10:53 AM
You are switching responisbilities here, even implying that there would be no decision by the parents at all.
New born children, healthy or not, can't live without an active decision by someone else to support it, thus choosing child abortion is not projecting ideas on others, these ideas are simply justifications for people who need to put their mind at ease. Firstly, I did not address abortion cases at all, but solely Leofric's examples of in his view justifiable infanticide: children that were born and are able to live given parental plus optional medical support. Like Leofric I would extend this to those unborn that are able to live with the same support if premature delivery would be initiated. So we are talking about born infants and fetuses after about the 28th to 30th week.

Secondly: If you, the parents, the doctors, the state, or someone else decide that it is justified to kill a certain child because of particular diseases or physical or mental defects, these persons are of course projecting their opinions or ideas which lives are worth to be lived onto the child. The child can at this time not yet form an opinion and also can't be asked.

That no child can live without support by someone is obvious but irrelevant, as it is here about a decision to withdraw this very support and to kill an infant based on the evaluation of its future life quality by others. Legal and societal consent in most Germanic nations is that premeditated neglect of a child by legal wards (e. g. parents and doctors) which leads to a child's death is homicide. Children, the weakest members of our society, are entitled to our support and protection.

Unlocking the door to the broom closet to withdraw this support and protection under certain circumstances would revitalize the long rejected idea that the lives of innocents may to be taken without their consent. Currently, all Germanic societies but the Netherlands (which allows voluntary euthanasia under very stringent material and formal requirements) don't even permit to take an innocent's life with his consent. I would be uncomfortable to see this gate opened even a foot again, as the spirits of abuse will do their best to push it wide open with the result that the principle will be applied to many other cases than those initially desired and foreseen.


The decision must be made. If a child is handicapped, deciding against it ( rather than supporting it for 16 or 21 years, and all goes down the drain when it kills itself ) I would presume that the suicide rate is higher amongst the handicapped than amongst the others and that the same would hold true for applications to voluntary euthanasia, but when it comes to Germanic lives, the right to live and the most important principles of self-determination, I prefer to leave the pocket calculator locked in the bottom drawer.


the means a new chance for the couple to put their focus on another attempt for a healthy child. ... which is never in question, as it is free to put the child up for adoption. You might be surprised but there are actually quite a few couples and women who explicitly wish to look after handicapped children.

Jäger
Saturday, March 10th, 2007, 11:14 AM
I did not address abortion cases at all, but solely Leofric's examples of in his view justifiable infanticide...
What I said goes for everyone who is not able to life on his own, be it a newly born infant or a 40 year old handicapped man.


If you, the parents, the doctors, the state, or someone else decide that it is justified to kill a certain child because of particular diseases or physical or mental defects, these persons are of course projecting their opinions or ideas which lives are worth to be lived onto the child.

That no child can live without support by someone is obvious but irrelevant, as it is here about a decision to withdraw this very support and to kill an infant based on the evaluation of its future life quality by others.
A decision, by definition, has at least two options to choose, so if one would decide to support the newly born child, then it is the same projection of ideas, what's worth living, onto it. It's a tautalogy, if someone needs help from others to live, of course, only they can decide if it is worth or not, frankly, I don't even see why anyone should want to ask the child.
The parents decide it is worth of being supported, since as you already said, the child cannot say anything in this regard it is at the mercy of its guardians.


Unlocking the door to the broom closet to withdraw it under certain circumstances would revitalize the long rejected idea that the lives of innocents may to be taken without their consent.
Not innocents, weaklings! In Germanic society murder was kept in check by the prospect of a hard revange, those who were not able to pose a threat of vengance, were at the mrecy of others.
Thus, the abandonment of crippeld infants in Germanic times is documented. If someone can, or simply wants to, afford such children then be it, but I would not make it illegal to decide in favour of strength rather than weakness. (I wouldn't make a law that requires all parents to kill their handicapped infants either.)


... but when it comes to Germanic lives, the right to live and the most important principles of self-determination, I prefer to leave the pocket calculator locked in the bottom drawer.
People who can't live on their own, have no self-determination, it is a contradiction in terms, at least in German "Selbsbestimmtes Leben" ( And this includes the physical ability too!)
In this case, it is about the self-determination of the guardians.


... which is never in question, as it is free to put the child up for adoption. You might be surprised but there are actually quite a few couples and women who explicitly wish to look after handicapped children.
Fine, but still I wouldn't outlaw the other side of the medal. Especially, when this would relay on a more or less similar mind set we have today, when strenght will be praised again, rather than weakness, the families who want to adopt handicapped children might become less.

Tryggvi
Saturday, March 10th, 2007, 12:25 PM
What I said goes for everyone who is not able to life on his own, be it a newly born infant or a 40 year old handicapped man.So they should, in your view, all be killed?

In our post-industrialist age of urbanization and division of labor, there are actually few people, even young and healthy people, who would be able to live entirely on their own. Man is a social animal, we no longer have the conditions for that, and we are all dependent on complex human organization, and exchange of services and products. Most of us depend on social and medical care in our lives; some of us chronically. Below the line, many people give in less, than they get out. Kill them, too?

[sarcasm mode]I mean, honestly, we are all living so bad already, in particular compared to previous times; we can't afford them anymore.[/sarcasm mode]


A decision, by definition, has at least two options to choose, so if one would decide to support the newly born child, then it is the same projection of ideas, what's worth living, onto it. It's a tautalogy, if someone needs help from others to live, of course, only they can decide if it is worth or not, frankly, I don't even see why anyone should want to ask the child.
The parents decide it is worth of being supported, since as you already said, the child cannot say anything in this regard it is at the mercy of its guardians. In our civilized societies, the subordinate idea is that every infant deserves support and protection. The right of parents to decide arbitrarily about the life and death of their children has - so it ever existed in this form - fortunately long been withdrawn.


Not innocents, weaklings! In Germanic society murder was kept in check by the prospect of a hard revange, those who were not able to pose a threat of vengance, were at the mrecy of others.
Thus, the abandonment of crippeld infants in Germanic times is documented. If someone can, or simply wants to, afford such children then be it, but I would not make it illegal to decide in favour of strength rather than weakness. (I wouldn't make a law that requires all parents to kill their handicapped infants either.) Jäger, I don't know when you last looked at a calender, but the last time I looked, it read 2007. We have made much educational, social, technological, philosophical (ethical) and economical progress since then.

While in early medieval times it was, indeed, partly medically and socially impossible to support the severely handicapped, and one had to leave them to their fate and at the mercy of the gods and benefactors, these arguments do hardly apply to the rich Western welfare societies. Their share in the total social budget is negligible. Unemployment, pensions and increasingly the care for the old are the big cost factors. And thanks to new professions beyond traditional agriculture, many handicapped people succeed to contribute their share and some manage to provide entirely for themselves.

So while I'm all for eugenics and a strong and healthy genetic pool, I don't think that disproportional and asocial measures need to be introduced. The society in a 100 years from now will not be stronger if we kill people with genetic defects. It suffices to prevent their procreation, to correct these defects in the inseminated ovum, or to select the right sperm or ovum that don't carry the defect respectively. Technology will make traditional eugenics a dead horse within the next decades.


People who can't live on their own, have no self-determination, it is a contradiction in terms, at least in German "Selbsbestimmtes Leben".
In this case, it is about the self-determination of the guardians. We were talking about self-determination in the context of deciding whether one prefers to live or to die. That's a decision every mature person should have the right to make; and it shouldn't be denied to anybody with the potential to reach maturity.


Fine, but still I wouldn't outlaw the other side of the medal. Because of the reasons I had mentioned already, and because such defects typically can be detected long before birth, I see no need for arbitrary slaughter of infants. No society ever created fame for itself by unnecessarily killing the weak and defenseless.

Jäger
Saturday, March 10th, 2007, 02:54 PM
So they should, in your view, all be killed?
No, I wouldn't make it a legal obligation to help them though.


In our post-industrialist age of urbanization and division of labor, there are actually few people, even young and healthy people, who would be able to live entirely on their own.
I see my mistake, "living on your own" was a wrong expresion, to actually go conform with your term, to be able to live self-determined is way better put.


[sarcasm mode]I mean, honestly, we are all living so bad already, in particular compared to previous times; we can't afford them anymore.[/sarcasm mode]
The question I raise is, whether this has to be compulsory or not, I say it must not. Everything else would be a praise of weakness.


In our civilized societies, the subordinate idea is that every infant deserves support and protection. The right of parents to decide arbitrarily about the life and death of their children has - so it ever existed in this form - fortunately long been withdrawn.
To kill a healthy child should be considered a crime against the society and thus made illegal.
However, with an unhealthy kid it becomes more than just guess work whether it will ever be of benefit to the society or live at their expense. It lacks many foundations to become advantagous, and the fraction of crippeld great men speak for itslef. (compare to Negroes :))


And thanks to new professions beyond traditional agriculture, many handicapped people succeed to contribute their share and some manage to provide entirely for themselves.
Yes, so? Maybe I wrote it to far at the end of my post, so that you haven't read this when you answered this, but I don't advocate to compulsory kill them all.
If someone can make a living out of it, I don't mind.


So while I'm all for eugenics and a strong and healthy genetic pool, I don't think that disproportional and asocial measures need to be introduced.
Again, I would not kill them by governmental oder, I would simply pass the responisbilites to the guardians, be it state or parents, thus this can't be asocial by definition.
Do you really think that making it not illegal to kill a crippled child [best compulsory adviced by an doctor] would make infanticide go up by the millions?
It is more of a signal that weakness has no governmental support in a strong state.


We were talking about self-determination in the context of deciding whether one prefers to live or to die. That's a decision every mature person should have the right to make; and it shouldn't be denied to anybody with the potential to reach maturity.
There certainly is only a very restricted self-determination to the question if someone wants to live or die, or else I would want to determine that I never die :D


Because of the reasons I had mentioned already, and because such defects typically can be detected long before birth, I see no need for arbitrary slaughter of infants.
Yes, even better when this will be the norm.


No society ever created fame for itself by unnecessarily killing the weak and defenseless.
Spartans? Anyway, mabye they didn't create fame, but strength.

Tryggvi
Sunday, March 11th, 2007, 04:21 PM
No, I wouldn't make it a legal obligation to help them though. I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. Let's say a 40-year-old handicapped man is involved in a traffic accident or needs emergency treatment because of appendicitis -- then in your view the doctors and the hospital should not be obliged to help him? :-O


I see my mistake, "living on your own" was a wrong expresion, to actually go conform with your term, to be able to live self-determined is way better put. Everybody, including the handicapped, can live a self-determined life, and everybody, including the handicapped, will experience certain limits to it, depending on external factors and restraints. Being handicapped is really a gradient and so is self-determination. You might be missing a finger, a leg, or be unable to walk. The only people who can't are the unconscious and the mentally severely inhibited.


To kill a healthy child should be considered a crime against the society and thus made illegal.
However, with an unhealthy kid it becomes more than just guess work whether it will ever be of benefit to the society or live at their expense. It lacks many foundations to become advantagous, and the fraction of crippeld great men speak for itslef. (compare to Negroes :)) You are right in that it is guess work and thus such a decision is impractical and immoral. I, for my part, refuse to kill people based on what somebody thinks on how they might turn out in 20 years. It's just too weak an assumption to deprive people of their life. There have been a great number of handicapped people that made to presidents (Roosevelt), ministers (Goebbels), or top physicists (Hawking), but even if that were not so, it would be impudent to argue that only "great men" are useful to society. It's further questionable whether everybody must be advantageous to society in order to sustain his right to live, and whether advantageous should only be measured in terms of economical value. Something that's a bit too materialistic for me, and which I would definitely oppose.


If someone can make a living out of it, I don't mind. The problem then is that a handicapped child might turn into an excellent computer programmer or scientist, but we will never know if it is killed or deprived of medical support right away.


Do you really think that making it not illegal to kill a crippled child [best compulsory adviced by an doctor] would make infanticide go up by the millions? No, and that's exactly my point. It's not that we are flooded by a swarm of crippled children which we are unable to sustain. It's statistically a minor to non-issue. They are no big burden on society, thus, there is no reason, in my view, to use extreme measures such as killing them or depriving them of medical support, if milder means (prevention that genetic defects are passed on to the next generation) fulfill the same eugenic purpose. There will always be a certain segment of the population who has the misfortune to be burdened with certain defects by birth. Others will gain them through their lives (workplace accidents, war veterans, etc.). I think it is a noble effort to try to reduce those numbers by eugenic measures, accident prevention, better protective equipment, etc.

I think that people should have the right to voluntary euthanasia, if they consider their suffering or fate unbearable, but if not, our societies should be social and warm enough to care about their basic needs (if they give their best but are still unable to provide completely for themselves), and to give them the same access to available and affordable medical support than everybody else. It sets a sign of social greatness.


It is more of a signal that weakness has no governmental support in a strong state. Only the weak need support. The strong don't need a government (to support them) in the first place.


There certainly is only a very restricted self-determination to the question if someone wants to live or die, or else I would want to determine that I never die :D Right, but you can still decide whether you wish to die right now or not. ;)

Jäger
Sunday, March 11th, 2007, 05:56 PM
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. Let's say a 40-year-old handicapped man is involved in a traffic accident or needs emergency treatment because of appendicitis -- then in your view the doctors and the hospital should not be obliged to help him? :-O
This would be out of legislation anyways, if the state pays the docotr to help, he, of course, has to help. The question is interesting when it comes to by-standers. The state has a strong interest in keeping people's self-determined lifes, thus first aid should be mandatory, since I wouldn't trust by-standers to decide whether a life can be put "back on track", or not.
So first aid is something different. Even more so:


Everybody, including the handicapped, can live a self-determined life, and everybody, including the handicapped, will experience certain limits to it, depending on external factors and restraints. Being handicapped is really a gradient and so is self-determination. You might be missing a finger, a leg, or be unable to walk. The only people who can't are the unconscious and the mentally severely inhibited.
It seems I have problems expressing myself in english, but I didn't mean all handicapped man, but exactly the extreme cases where no self-determination is possible anymore, e.g. heavily mentally retarded or even infants :D
Everything which can help to make a man/woman live a self-determined life again should be supported, e.g. a man with problems with his eye sight certainly should be able to use glasses :)
There are cases where hop and malt are lost. So it should be clear now, that I actually speak only about a small fraction of handicapped people.


I, for my part, refuse to kill people based on what somebody thinks on how they might turn out in 20 years.
I wouldn't want to force people to support a life for 20years with a very likely prospect that they won't get anything back, or that they don't even give anytihng to societey, while this cripple then occupies the place for another attempt with a healthy child.


It's further questionable whether everybody must be advantageous to society in order to sustain his right to live, and whether advantageous should only be measured in terms of economical value.
1) Not the right to live, but the right to be helped 2) certainly not pure economically, a healthy man could be e.g. a soldier, or whatever, you can't deny that for a healthy man there are certainly more options than for a handicapped one.


The problem then is that a handicapped child might turn into an excellent computer programmer or scientist, but we will never know if it is killed or deprived of medical support right away.
Yes, indeed, whoever wants to take this risk, should do that, I simply don't force them to do so, nor do I expect that from "them".


It's not that we are flooded by a swarm of crippled children which we are unable to sustain. It's statistically a minor to non-issue.
My argument is a change of the spirit, this is just consequential.


Others will gain them through their lives (workplace accidents, war veterans, etc.).
Well, as I said, if theere is a likely possibility to get them back on track, we must help them of course.


I think it is a noble effort to try to reduce those numbers by eugenic measures, accident prevention, better protective equipment, etc.
Indeed.


Only the weak need support. The strong don't need a government (to support them) in the first place.
Yes, but of course these is ideally thought, in reality everyone has strengths and weaknesses.
For instance when I was in the military, we had this wall where we were supposed to jump over, many failed here, so I had to pull one up, help him, I did this within a heartbeat, he was weak in this regard, but I knew he has strength too, maybe he can shoot good (he don't even has to shoot that good), and me with him means two more eyes, two more ears, etc. there are literally tons of reasons why I would help this man in his moment of weakness, if I would have considered him totally incapable of doing anything, which is the case with heavily handicapped people, I wouldn't have pulled him up. But I don't have high expectations, someone with two working legs, arms, and ears and eyes and a working motor function, already is pretty high on the list :D


Right, but you can still decide whether you wish to die right now or not. ;)
Let's say one can decide if he wants to die, but certainly not, not to die :)

Tryggvi
Sunday, March 11th, 2007, 07:15 PM
This would be out of legislation anyways, if the state pays the docotr to help, he, of course, has to help. The question is interesting when it comes to by-standers. The state has a strong interest in keeping people's self-determined lifes, thus first aid should be mandatory, since I wouldn't trust by-standers to decide whether a life can be put "back on track", or not.
So first aid is something different. Okay, in many jurisdictions failure to render assistance is a criminal offense in any case.


It seems I have problems expressing myself in english, but I didn't mean all handicapped man, but exactly the extreme cases where no self-determination is possible anymore, e.g. heavily mentally retarded or even infants :D
Everything which can help to make a man/woman live a self-determined life again should be supported, e.g. a man with problems with his eye sight certainly should be able to use glasses :)
There are cases where hop and malt are lost. So it should be clear now, that I actually speak only about a small fraction of handicapped people. Okay, thanks for your clarification. It seems that our positions aren't that far apart after all. Personally, I don't think I would be able to raise a mentally severely handicapped child, for example. I neither would have the strength, nor the time, nor the will and commitment. This would leave abortion or putting it up for adoption.

In think in such cases, euthanasia could also be discussed. If a child would be mentally so handicapped, that it is basically lacking self-consciousness, and there is no potential to reach it, the question is legitimate whether it is of any value to sustain the life at all.

Would I like to vegetate like this? Maybe even in a state struck by terror, nightmares and pain? Surely not. Life has much value -- but it needn't be sustained at any price. Our current societies rather moved into an extreme. They don't permit the old to die in dignity either.


I wouldn't want to force people to support a life for 20years with a very likely prospect that they won't get anything back, or that they don't even give anytihng to societey, while this cripple then occupies the place for another attempt with a healthy child. Surely.

Kith of woden
Sunday, March 11th, 2007, 07:38 PM
As for cyber sex, if you dont feel it is cheating then just tell your partner, if you do feel its cheating then why would you want to cheat on your partner anyway? Is your relationship that unfullfilled that you need cyber sex?

As far as abortion goes, well as a man who will never have to go through one myself I dont know if my opinion carrys any weight or not but here goes.I just think that we still have to think of the consequence of our actions before the stage of termination has advanced. I mean can we be so casual as to say " well it really dosent matter if you/I get pregnant we can just get "it" terminated" .On the strength of you believe that theres no pain involved. to the fetus. There are cases where i can understand abortion (rape etc)And sometimes I look at some parents and think "They dont deserve kids", but i look at my own daughter and think that I had the power to abort that life if i had wanted to. I know thats looking at the problem with sentiment, but fundementaly id have to say im against it.

Leofric
Monday, March 12th, 2007, 04:03 AM
Such kind of wheelchairs?

http://www.businessworld.in/archive/010122/stephen%20hawking.jpg
Totally! Get rid of that guy! ;)

Seriously though, that is the kind of wheelchair I meant, but this particular occupant is not the kind of occupant I had in mind.




Are we talking about physical deformations only, with no extraordinary, unbearable amount of pain involved? Would it in such cases not be better to wait at least the 16 to 21 years, until the affected person can make her own mature decision whether she considers her life worth living?
I was actually thinking of physical and mental malformation. Someone who would actually be able to make a mature decision (or even a rather juvenile one) after 16 to 21 years should probably be left alive. I live near a state mental hospital, and so I see a lot of people who live for decades and never seem to progress to the stage of mental maturity or motor capabilities that the average toddler enjoys. That's the kind of person I think should probably have been put out of his misery right away.

Someone who will be capable of developing human capacity to reason (even if it's just the reasoning of a child) should be given the opportunity to decide for himself whether his life is worth living, just like the paralyzed sportswoman you mentioned.

I guess I could have expressed that better before. Sorry.




What if the diagnosis was wrong? What if, because of a specific gene the child is carrying, unknown at that time, the defect would never break out and affect said child? What if medical research coincidentally finds a cure within a few years?
I think that's just one of those risks you take. Some people keep patients on life support for long periods of time holding out hope for improved medical knowledge. Others are the DNR type.

Some folks are willing to accept the inadequacies of modern medicine and make life-or-death judgments based on what adequacy is available. Others are not.

I have more of an accepting view of death — mine or another's. Death seems pretty okay to me. So if it doesn't look like life is going to be sustainable or enjoyable based on what information we have, I personally am okay with going for the option of death instead — again, for myself or for someone else.

So I guess the lesson here is, don't leave me in charge of your medical care or that of your loved ones unless you feel the same way! ;)




In general, given the graduality of the assumption: why not let the child enjoy the relatively healthy and pain-free time it has got, until death becomes preferrable to life? Would you put your dog to sleep now if you learned it had a defect that will kill it within a few years?
Yeah, that'd be all right. Though I'm not convinced that letting the child live those first couple of years would be worth it to him. But it certainly wouldn't hurt, either.




Aren't we disposing of human life far too quick here?
Nah! ;)




How can infanticide in this case be justifiable from an eugenic perspective at all given the principle of proportionality (choosing the mildest means that still reach a certain aim)? Legal (sufficiently deterring laws) or medical methods (sterilization) to avoid procreation would be sufficient.
Hmm. Well, I guess my family has always told me that I'm always running to extremes! :D

Good thing Godiva is just as extreme as me — we match well.




I probably agree with the thesis behind these words, but in none of the examples you gave about infanticide the life of the mother, or, given the possibility of putting the child up for adoption, her potential of staying fertile and having more (healthy) children was endangered.
It seems to me like both childbirth and, for that matter, abortion inherently put the mother's life and/or continued fertility at risk. I think that in cases where abortion or infanticide might be a wise option, the choice should be made so as to minimize that risk.