Abortion of All The disabled Children, Non-voluntary euthanasia, the mercy killing of all the mentally disabled. what are your thoughts?

[wölfin-fräulein]

Richard Dawkins on down Syndrome:

“Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare. I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else.”

What are your thoughts about aborting all with down syndrome?

What are your thoughts about aborting all with mental and physical disabilities?

and also, What are your thoughts about Non-voluntary euthanasia the mercy killing of all mentally disabled?
are they born to live? or are they born to die? what would it be if they were left alone in nature like the disabled animals? would they remain alive? or would they die like every disabled animal and annihilated by nature like everything that does not have the power to survive?

should they even be around naturally?

Updates

+1 y

wpmedia.o.canada.com/.../...0000578-92_634x356.jpg
upload.wikimedia.org/.../NCP14053.jpg
www.hope-for-children.org/.../MENCAFEP.jpg
news.fergananews.com/photos/2008_05/mlad.jpg
static.flickr.com/19/105407325_942948791b_o.jpg
mikefriesen05.files.wordpress.com/.../..._xmas.jpg

[Anonymous]

I agree with Dawkins to a certain extent but a few of the responses bother me. A process of nature (I. e. Survival of the fittest) shouldn't be grounds for moral decisions. It would be like saying gravity exists so therefore you should never catch anyone. Survival of the fittest and by extension evolution is an ongoing process that continues to happen no matter what we do. The theory of gravity predicts that if you jump you'll come back down not that falling should be permissible and never interfered with. The concept of survival of the fittest in terms of biology pretty much says the things that successfully reproduce pass on genes not that it's wrong or right to alter this process. We alter it everyday. We wear clothing in weather that should kill us. We buy food grown so far away that we would never reach it by foot and meat from animals we probably couldn't kill on our own. None of this is wrong and none of it changes survival of the fittest. The argument about abortion and euthanasia are philosophical questions not scientific questions and the problem with philosophy is it can only really be looked at through the lens of each individual human mind which is far more difficult to check for errors than scientific research. You can't run an experiment to prove if philosophical hypothesis work. So when people try and use science to answer these question I can't help but wonder if they've thought deeply about it. What your looking at is Dawkins own personal views whether they are right or wrong is a matter of opinion and there is no way that I know of to prove this objectively. To me right and wrong are just ideas used to describe what we desire and what we do not. We desire living in a world without murder (but most don't mind killing other species of life :\ ) but also desire living in a world without suffering but a lion must murder to avoid suffering so both are just goals to work towards that can never be reached. Interesting question but I can't answer it yet

[wölfin-fräulein]

false comparison. Humans alter their life with their ‘intelligence’ themselves and it exist in nature to a point, not as ruling will. it is not against nature but following the nature. it exist in every animal too. they find shelter, they will go under something warm if they find it in the cold. it is how nature itself wants, random and also by will, as the evolution by adoption is. one with more will power to resist will survives the nature, and intelligence is how much one is conscious and able to use will. in humans the level is high and they alter and adopt and resist. exactly what nature itself wants.
But, the disabled are not slightly comparable with this. they are not able to do the deed the creatures in the bottom line of intelligence do, Surviving. They are not comparable with animals too as they do have will and know how to use it in their own level to survive.
an intelligent human does every change to resist. A disabled does not...

[wölfin-fräulein]

…do anything to resist, for he cannot do anything to resist following the damages or the generic alteration. And one’s basic resistance and ‘will to survive’ is determined by himself individually not in a whole.

Simply the true comparison is as we consider everyone as individual and see which one has the ability to resist the gravity and falling down independently. The intelligent ones do it individually one by one in different ways. And the ones who fall without being able to help themselves, they will not survive.

The mentally disabled are out of every course of humans, animals, and all nature. they cannot be considered inside to be compared to the others in survival.

He, a disabled, does not understand the meaning of survival, and so life. Because life is survival. He is only alive as his body is functioning and his brain working to a certain reactionary level. That is all.

[Opinion Owner]

Okay

[MrScTi]

I'm been very much enlightened by the work of Richard Dawkins over the years and agree with his opinions and caveats on the subject.

But beyond that I'm afraid I don't agree. It seems you have piggy-backed what was a thoughtful, empathetic piece by Dawkins and partitioned it with this unrelated, rather obscure eugenicist context that Dawkins was not implying at all.

"What are your thoughts about aborting all with down syndrome?"
-I'm in agreement with Dawkins and I would not impose mandatory abortions nor would I judge those who bring a child with down syndrome into this world.

As for the second question, it depends on the severity of the disability. If the child has no capacity to survive even under supervision, there is no moral foundation by which the parents should continue this pregnancy. Both the children and parents are doomed in this affair. Even then, it is the choice of the parents and we can only attempt to persuade them.

Involuntary euthanasia of the disabled is unethical, period.

[wölfin-fräulein]

first I said somewhere else. this has necessarily nothing to do with eugenics. though this is sometimes considered a part of that but the two are completely different subjects with different goals.
this was done even in ancient Greece and Persia, only to stop the possible wastes in everything, as well as negative emotions every single day.

second. the Dawkins part is only for the first Question, and I wrote his complete comment, you can see he's saying the Choices are yours.

The Question is only a generalization to see the opinions in a different perspective.

[MrScTi]

If one agrees with the Dawkins quote as I do, then the following questions are invalid. That's my only gripe.

There are benefits to aborting defective fetuses, sure. However, none of them supercede human rights

[wölfin-fräulein]

the Dawkins quote is the best possible answer in a very basic way.

but if we want to expand it to the society, the disabled are a complete issue themselves. financially, psychologically, that will decrease the overall hygiene of the society or a part of the society that is not very minor too.
So the question is that why we should not do this in a society's scale? why we should not make everyone aware that the unnecessary compassion towards disabled are lowering the mental hygiene of the whole society. why we should not make them aware that many of those who choose to have these babies will unnecessarily suffer in their lives keeping a suffering being.
why we should not have a cleaner society? what will a mentally disabled understand from life? 'life' itself would have killed him if he confronted it. this is only logic, and nothing more.

and I do not preach this idea. just want to see the level of logical and emotional opinion.

[MrScTi]

This strays from the subject but I must say that your motives are quite clear, and they are quite scary to most who have "excess compassion" as you might put it. If granted absolute authority over humanity, I imagine we'd see a lot of "cleansing". Perhaps you'd spare me as your brown eyed, dark hair specimen to use as an example of what could go wrong in the human genome :)

In response to your question, you don't impose this onto society. You make them aware through education so they can make the decision for themselves. Certainly religious dogma doesn't help in this process.

[wölfin-fräulein]

I said. this does not necessarily have anything to do with eugenics. that is a different idea, chasing a different goal.
this is only cleaning the society from the actual observable mentally 'disabled'. that are simply, the errors of nature's craft.
Do you want to be bound to keep and error? if the actual creation was not in your hands?
you 'may' like to, that is your choice. but your choice will also effect the society.
and if by all means you want to keep, at least you have to accept that those who do not want to keep be able to do the Non-voluntary euthanasia on their disabled fruit. if they suffer to a point that they want to do this, you do not have the right to tell them to keep it.
and the 'will' of the child belongs to the parents, as he neither does understand nor have the ability to use his will.

[MrScTi]

I was humoring you using a grain of truth, but I see you're not having any of it. Fine. One of the many unknowns I now wish to discover is whether or not you laugh, and not at the death of our lesser evolved of the species... Again, a joke. Okay, I'll stop.

The error in this approach to "errors" is that what you see to be an error is subjective. The person with said error may be capable of happiness and fulfillment, regardless of their condition.

Take someone with cerebral palsy. This "error" is not entirely deabilitating and the person is capable of sustaining life. Where must this line of error must be drawn? Would you abort someone with CP? It is an error, but you are still dealing with a cognitively aware individual capable of syhtheszing happiness.

[wölfin-fräulein]

well, that gave me a good chuckle. I am not sure what is actually a chuckle though...

you are bringing up the types now but that would be another topic. the line of 'error' would be determined by the level of consciousness and ability to associate and work in the society in comparison with the 'lowest' IQ's in the society that are simply the bottom of the IQ of a nation, or country, though the able ones.
The error is simply the one who is not a success. and a success is a complete independent human being. the mere emotions of happiness and other emotions is not something we can determine an 'error' with. all the ones who are under the bottom IQ and ability of the society are logically errors of the nature. the same thing we see in animals. there are animals with similar disabilities and even mental illnesses in those who are able. and they, the disabled ones, are all considered error by nature. and it will kill them, simply.
for us humans, we are not apart from nature.

[wölfin-fräulein]

and again. if there is a free choice, and in some disabilities the people do not suffer, they keep him or her. it is theirs. but still naturally considered an error.
and in some who do suffer, there can be free will for Non-voluntary euthanasia as the child is naturally an error, and they have the right for it logically.

[MrScTi]

I see where you're getting at, and I'm sure you're using IQ as a point of reference, not literally the line that determines who should be killed. IQ is relative and the average is slowly rising.

Consciousness is criteria I agree with unless dealing with coma patients. Someone completely vegetated and having lost all thought and motor functions would be a candidate.

As for the ability to associate and work, there's too many niche occupations where a pulse is the minimum requirement (Wal Mart). Even competency is not a good enough reason, as they are still humans capable of synthesizing happiness and fulfillment. That is a right we cannot infringe upon.

Even independance is sketchy. Is a diabetic independant or dependant? Is a person with poor eyesight independant or dependant? This is a matter of technology. Technology changes.

You mention nature and that is where we can find solace in this issue. Natural selection will eventually run its course.

[wölfin-fräulein]

"IQ is relative and the average is slowly rising". IQ is only a measurement for the level of intelligence inside the human society, it is made to be a comparison and so relative. and as I said the disabled are out of this. IQ of the disabled are measured under 50 and many under 30 it could be not measured at all. simply most of them are not 'intelligent' but are at a low level of consciousness. and not like the animals, animals are not disabled and choose and do and survive independently. the disabled are completely different, they Genetic problems or damages.
Simply many the ones disabled are not very more conscious than an intelligent man in Coma. though that is not a fit comparison scientifically. but the level of consciousness is very low in many of them.

And as for this, again I will say you cannot say who can be candidate as they are considered errors because of the actual damage and Genetic error causes the disability. and the parents if they suffer and want, should have..

[wölfin-fräulein]

... the right to do the action mentioned. one cannot consider it unethical only because it does have the name of 'cleansing' or 'killing' inside it. the society cannot go on freely like this.

"Is a person with poor eyesight independant or dependant? This is a matter of technology. Technology changes". and this is out of topic. a false comparison. a person with poor eyesight and even blinded is not 'mentally' disabled. blind by birth is a physical disability and is the least of disabilities that yes, it does make one dependent. but not as dependent as a mentally disabled that is not 'curable'. a poor eyesight can be simply cured now. a blind man also can be learn to have his own way and even independence. but one with mental disability is disable for life. as I said, false comparison.

[wölfin-fräulein]

and I am impressed, the same people who have the history of killing each other and the most intelligent ones of nations for their belief and still become aggressive and even have the chance to repeat those actions again, are opposed to this with the same belief. and come forward as the most opposed when it comes to a logical idea of giving the free will to people to for example 'cleansing' the ones who are naturally disabled and have no actual will to live themselves.

[MrScTi]

Physical disabilities WERE technically part of the question but if you wish to narrow it down I understand. Genetic abnormalities/mutations are so broad and laden with exceptions that one blanket policy couldn't do justice. The choice must be up to the individual with authority, and they should be educated so they can make an informed decision.

If the IQ of the individual in question is so low they are incapable of displaying even rudimentary awareness, the right falls on the parents. Involuntary euthanasia is then NOT involuntary, but a choice.

Most people would not bring a child with down syndrome in this world if they understood the facts. I cannot prove it, I'm merely putting stock in the individual's ability to reason without religious dogma clouding their judgment. Perhaps religion is the biggest hurdle to overcome, so it's not a matter of policy, its a matter of dissuading religious discourse.

[wölfin-fräulein]

read carefully physical disabilities in 'abortion', not non-voluntary euthanasia. that was said only for mentally disabled. Stephen hawking became physically disabled and he does more than half of the world very 'able' people with his brain. though I do think if he was disabled in birth he would have a different path and would be less able than this.
and yes, the choice is with the individuals, as I said. but it is the moral that is the force against the will of individuals.
And also, non-voluntary euthanasia is different than involuntary euthanasia. involuntary is when there is will, and euthanasia is done against the will of the individual himself. non-voluntary euthanasia is when the will and consent of the individual is not available due to lack of consciousness. and as the parents lead his will and life, yes, they have the right to choose this, and this will not be any different than voluntary euthanasia.

and agree with the rest.

[grlwguymind]

Wow! Im in disgust... no one is born to die. Everyone is born with a soul and purpose. I had a twin sister who was mentally and physically disabled (died last oct age 28). Yes it wasn't always easy taking care of her but we loved her just like any husband or wife would care for their life partner at old age. I didn't view her as a burden but a gift that taught our family to work together. I cherished what she had taught in silence. It was not something over which to exert control but assume stewardship. She has taught me how to love unconditionally, give sacrificially, and serve humbly. I have learned to be kind, not judge by appearance, be compassionate and sympathetic, and trust God. Everything happens for a reason and im glad I could take and learn from this so called "disabled". Every life is important and created for a purpose. The effects she made on my own life is greatly appreciated!

[wölfin-fräulein]

"no one is born to die"

I do agree.

wpmedia.o.canada.com/.../...0000578-92_634x356.jpg
www.trendsnhealth.com/.../multiple-limbs.jpg
https://temp_thoughts_resize. s3. amazonaws. com/64/0fe250821a11e398c201eca7f2c873/Anencephaly. jpg
www.odermatol.com/.../image001j.jpg
www.trendsnhealth.com/.../hydrocephalus.jpg
www.trendsnhealth.com/.../anenchephaly.jpg

[ShaeNielson]

Actually, we are all born to die.. It just takes longer

[grlwguymind]

All im trying to say is no one is to judge the quality of life or have authority to take it away but God.

[snowangle]

My question is, what exactly makes a person to be considered worthy of life? Because Downs have extra needs, does that mean they shouldn't live? Or because they may or may not be functioning members of society? What, then, about retirees? Or adults who have been disabled as a result from injury?

If, however, his concern is that Downs are unhappy or have a lesser quality of life, I'll have to disagree. People with Downs generally seem like very happy and friendly people.

So anyway. That's my opinion.

[musicbrain5]

No no no. Just no to all of that. What's next, forcing everyone to practice eugenics so we can achieve a master race of perfect humans?

[wölfin-fräulein]

this has necessarily nothing to do with eugenics. though this is sometimes considered a part of that but the two are completely different subjects with different goals.
this was done even in ancient Greece and Persia, only to stop the possible wastes in everything, as well as negative emotions every single day.

[musicbrain5]

It's still unethical in my opinion.

[wölfin-fräulein]

I do think it should be a free choice even for those who want to do the Non-voluntary euthanasia on their disabled children. they are the ones practically leading the disabled's life as he does not have 'will' or the ability to understand and use it. so it is logical that parents could choose this freely. and nothing unethical about it, when they suffer very much that they choose to do this. they are not here to suffer from and error of the nature. and no one can tell them they have to.

about the question generalizing, it is mentioning them as a social issue. because they practically are. at least for quite a few of the people.

in the end, I am not preaching this. only want to see the opinions. so thanks for that.

[pr3ttybr0wn]

this isn't pleasant to think about, but I think I would abort a mentally disabled baby if we knew it was defective during utero

[Mesonfielde]

From the viewpoint of the gene pool, that would be for the better, considering these are the result of mutations that are generally unwanted in children, the best example being Down syndrome where the 22th genetic allele is literally missing. Although I have heard that limbs can go missing just by not taking sufficient quantity of B6 vitamin, aka folic acid if I remember the name right. To be honest, it depends on the severity of the disorder. In extreme cases such as the baby with two faces, that could be for the better. If they can legitimately screen for these before birth, then that would be useful for the future of everyone.

[wölfin-fräulein]

and if they could not screen in cases. would Non-voluntary euthanasia be okay if the parents wanted to do? or they are bound to keep the child forever? even if they suffer and regret having it.

[Mesonfielde]

The only problem with it is that it's objectively murder without consent, so if you allowed it, it would have to be extremely regulated and doctor's approval and stuff while the doctor probably wouldn't want to have "blood" on their hands.

[wölfin-fräulein]

it is not murder. it should not be seen as murder. the disabled are suffering. and they make many of the ones who keep them suffer. despite the ones who like to keep them with all the suffer, we are not talking about those and those are not the majority. but many if not the most regret this every day.

If we look at it a Christian way the killing of the most intelligent is not murder if he is only considered a heretic. and the same people oppose to the idea of giving the free will to the ones who want cleansing, for a human that is practically not able to survive by himself or herself.

If you care so much about the 'blood' on the hands. What if we leave them in the nature when reached a certain age of maturity. see if they can go on by themselves. what if we make nature have the 'blood' on its hands. will that be then okay? is all the issue is someone wanting to end the life of a hardly conscious creature? so give him to the cruel mother nature. how about that?

[wölfin-fräulein]

maybe a Tarzan will born, or he will evolve above the human beings. who knows? let the nature decide.

[Kinstrome]

I find it a rather dangerous line of thinking. There are people besides Dawkins who have tried to abbreviate what constitutes life-worth-living. I cannot imagine this line of thinking stopping at mentally retarded people. What about other people with low intelligence? What about people with genetic problems? What about people with depression? A society cannot exist without some inherent respect for human life.

People rallied around Hitler when he said that tens of millions of people needed to be killed to clear land for the master race. Few of those people were sociopaths. There's nothing about humanity now which makes me think mass killings are totally a thing of the past. We live in a time where there is already a growing belief that governments should increasingly regulate human affairs.

[SüßeJäger]

Hitler would love your ideas! Too bad for you and your type he is dead. Maybe another will come along someday. Any other group of humans you dont approve of we could hit in the head with a hammer? My best friends brother was born with down syndrome. He was intelligent, funny and a more decent person than most other people i know. I guess since he doesn't live up to what you think the standards of a human being should be, you should go find him and crush his skull.

[wölfin-fräulein]

calling me a Nazi will neither make me a Nazi nor make your words less ignorant.
you do not know the meaning of intelligent otherwise you would not call a Genetically altered human with an intelligence quotient around 50 intelligent. they are only hardly considered conscious to a certain level. they show compassion, but have no actual understanding of it. as compassion is the result of chemical reactions inside the body and is followed automatically unconsciously. and they do not have the will and intelligence to neither understand it nor control it, they only show everything in its most basic way without consciously knowing what they show. you do not have enough knowledge about this. do not need to express your emotions for validations.
If have logic, go on. If you do not, do not waste the time.

[SüßeJäger]

You are one sick person. You're ugly too. I think ugly children like you should be aborted cuz you don't live up to my personal standard of beauty. Nazis had the same ideas as you, Nazi.

[wölfin-fräulein]

bravo for the insults. I will take it all as compliment of an average violent impolite emotional person. as I take the hate of the average person as compliment. good work bearded kid.

[SüßeJäger]

Violent? I'm not the one advocationg killing human beings. For the purpose that they don't fit my personal views of what a human should be. Who else doesn't make your cut? Jews maybe? How about someone born without a toe? Do they measure up? Maybe my daughter that was born with a slightly crooked foot. Is she human enough to not be chopped into pieces or chemically burned to death with salt by your abortionist? Where is your line?

[wölfin-fräulein]

"Where is your line?"

where the ignorance of your kind ends. now go to sleep.

[FrekiWolfdregil]

Ja fräulein, töten sie alle I'm all for it, you can say what you like, but when you look at nature disabilities don't survive. Bringing them into the world is terrible for everybody, doctors, specialists, nurses, care aids, the bills pile up, and it's an emotional ride for the parents. I say abort while you can and see if ya get it right next time, if not well i guess you shouldn't have kids.

[sean1234]

Abortion of All The disabled Children, Non-voluntary euthanasia, the mercy killing of all the mentally disabled. what are your thoughts?

-Sounds like a bunch of cold blooded murderers to me.

[sean1234]

OH and Abortion is not a right, if you get pregnant, then you planned on having that baby. Getting pregnant and having an abortion is like Owning a restaurant cooking food and throwing it all in the garbage all day long every day.

[Anonymous]

Bring a disabled child into this world for your own selfish desires which results in that child experiencing turmoil for a lifetime?

I agree with Dawkins.

[Anonymous]

Survival of the fittest.
I believe that the strong should survive, and the weak should not be breeding.
If nature cannot correct a mistake, then I believe in human interference.

[Anonymous]

Sure. If the baby isn't healthy, then why keep it? They are gonna need care, for their whole life. It's easier for everyone (an more merciful, in my opinion) to just not let them exist.

[WhaChaChaKing]

Any douche bag that believes this is the one that deserves to die not the disabled.

[wölfin-fräulein]

Impressing reasoning. I think you should go out and kill quite more than a few, and you will find some families with disabled children between them. good logic, good job.

[WhaChaChaKing]

I said deserves to die. Didn't say I'd send them to their death. Besides, I think innocent unborn children are worth more than evil people like you. At least they have a chance of becoming a decent person. You're already gone.

[wölfin-fräulein]

"evil people like you".

thank you for the direct insult. your level of logic, education, and your decent behaviour is very clear from the way you speak. I would not call someone I did not know 'evil' for asking a question and merely wanting to see the opinions rather than fighting for a cause. I do not have a cause, but you girl, you have, the cause of idiocy and blind judgement. good job overall. you are not smart enough to understand the topic. so I will not waste time to elaborate and instead will tell you, have a nice day.

[Anonymous]

That sounds a lot like how the Nazis started.

[wölfin-fräulein]

that does not have anything to do with Nazism, do not link everything to Nazism if you can't have a logical opinion.

[Opinion Owner]

It has everything to do with Nazism and their desire to create the perfect race. They started out by killing the mentally handicapped and work their way up from there.

[sean1234]

That sounds a lot like how the Nazis started.

-This

[wölfin-fräulein]

they didn't start by that genius, that was during the war.

and Non-voluntary euthanasia history goes back to ancient Greece, Persia and Roma. don't claim nonsenses if you don't know anything about a subject.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes they did start with that, even before the war.

It is true that other people in the past tried similar things, and not just the Nazis. That doesn't mean it wasn't part of Hitlers plan. You seem to be the only one here that doesn't understand how the Nazis started.

[wölfin-fräulein]

Nazis has nothing to do with Non-voluntary euthanasia as a possible salvation for a social issue. it is something that was there from thousands of years ago. Nazis only brought it up and used it as many other ideas that they used.
two are not necessarily related in roots, and the logic of one cannot be disproved by the actions of another. practically Nazis have nothing to do with this subject. done.

[Opinion Owner]

"Nazis only brought it up and used it as many other ideas that they used." I agree. However when you can take someones life simply because you think they are weak or inferior, where do you draw the line?

[wölfin-fräulein]

"because you think they are weak or inferior". They 'are' weak. and nobody thinks they are inferior, but they are unable to live normally. unable to be independent. unable to achieve the least of everything a low IQ human can achieve. And above all these, they suffer. and make the parents and so the society suffer. they nature would kill them itself if they were left alone.

[Opinion Owner]

"Non-voluntary euthanasia the mercy killing of all mentally disabled" I know people that are mentally disabled that are wonderful people I would never want to see harmed. Just because they don't fit another persons idea of what a perfect human should be doesn't mean that we have a right to kill them.

[Opinion Owner]

By your logic we should kill all of the old people as well. since they can't live normally and are unable to be independent.

[Mesonfielde]

That's kinda what nature does eventually past a certain point.

[Anonymous]

Present day Germany eh.

[yooooooooooooo]

That's horrible

[wölfin-fräulein]

what is horrible and why?

[yooooooooooooo]

Nobody has the right to kill\aborte them... U serious asking why?

[wölfin-fräulein]

1. nobody has the right to euthanasia and as a mentally disabled 'rights' belongs to his and her parents they can choose that for him or her of possible. because he or she is not even able to live by himself.

2. abortion is a right, and no one can say anything to those who want to abort willingly.

[wölfin-fräulein]

if possible*

[yooooooooooooo]

I believe in. god so its pointless arguing with u why dont you help them instead of killing them if you seeking mercy.. Have mercy on them god will have mercy on you

[SpiderGirl226]

this makes me very sad :(

[edgyfox]

Disability shouldn't be a death sentence.