Total Pageviews

Sunday, 20 March 2011

Abortions and euthanasia, double standards

People have abortions because they don't think they can handle the burden of a child at that particular point in their life. Anyone can have an abortion as long as their pregnancy has not reached more than 24 weeks, regardless of how healthy the baby would potentially be. However, for mentally handicapped babies, euthanasia is illegal.

Looking after a mentally disabled child takes a lot of tax payer's money, and many of them are completely dependent on one or more people for their continued survival. If a mother cannot handle the burden of looking after someone who requires 24/7/365 attention for the rest of its life, then shouldn't she should be allowed to make a decision on its life? Not all mental handicaps can be detected before 24 weeks. It's a terrible double standard, it shouldn't make a difference whether or not the child is born or unborn.

Why can we kill the fetus (which has far more potential) for it being an inconvenience, but not kill the handicapped person, which is an inconvenience with little or no potential?


  1. Interesting post, really made me think

  2. Interesting thoughs, I will follow you.

  3. I'm pro choice,

    but this is a very difficult issue to discuss

  4. another way of humanity trying to understand what god or what ever god you believe in wants you to do.
    especially with backgrounds like the euthanasia program in the third reich its a complicated discussion

  5. Whoa controversial yeah?
    You can kill a foetus because it's arguable that it's not really alive (can't breathe, can't digest etc.) and that it can't feel pain.
    A mentally disabled baby is alive and it most definitely can feel pain, so I have to say I would disagree with euthanising handicapped babies.
    You do make some really good points though and this wasn't something I had thought about before.

  6. What about pets, people euthanize pets all the time, shouldn't humans be afforded the same luxury..