Following on from the discussion of morality in
this thread i have been recently contemplating an issue which was raised in
this post.
My question is:
"Why does (British) society not kill disabled babies* whilst allowing the existence of abortion?"
Personally i feel the notion of "a woman's right to choose" is not the real reason at the heart of the matter. I feel that notion, whilst "morally" expedient in the current climate, disguises the real reason.
I believe that the reason given why disabled babies (who could only ever be a drain on societies resources) are allowed to live is because "it's wrong to kill". Society however allows the death of soldiers, foreign combatants and unborn babies. As such killing is acceptable, just not in this case.
I propose that nobody (currently) kills disabled children whilst they (currently) do kill the unborn because it encourages the creation of the most children under favourable conditions (e.g. standard of living etc). If parents knew that their children could be disabled (more likely when the parents are older) they might not risk having their child killed so they might have no children at all (bad from societies viewpoint). Abortion on the other hand allows greater "family planning", having children when the conditions are optimal (and as such not wasting societies resources on e.g. state aid etc)
It's just a thought i've had rattling around in my head for a few weeks. Dissect it as you see fit GD.
*a la 300