Is killing children with birth defects wrong? If it was a universally accepted practice back then, does that change the answer? Are there cultural/societal rights and wrongs? Are there universal rights and wrongs? Is abortion right or wrong? Can it be right in the 20th century and wrong in the 21st century? I know the religious answer to these questions... what's the atheist view?
2007-09-07 05:23:16 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
you may know your religious answers. please do not try to speak for the rest of us.
2007-09-07 05:27:29 · answer #1 · answered by kent_shakespear 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Moraly rights and wrongs are not defined by religion or the current social beliefs or LAWS.
Moral decisions deals with the well being of others and the surrounding.
Although it was socially 'right' for the people of the past to kill off childrens with defects, it is morally wrong of them because they did not consider the well being of the defected childrens.
Religion cannot be used as a basis for what is right or wrong because it is just a belief. Everybody has their own belief and when you say that 'God' instructs you to do so because its right, which god are you talking about?
There are many religions on earth and none of them can be proven as something concrete.
2007-09-07 05:42:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
By children I am assuming you mean kids who are already born and viable outside of the womb right?
Killing viable humans is always wrong, no matter what their defect or from another example in the dark ages, their belief.
If you are talking about abortion, which you probably are, this argument doesn't apply as the deaths in the 13th century were post birth.
2007-09-07 05:29:15 · answer #3 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Remember the state of society in the 13th century. You might have six kids and only one would make it to adulthood. Plague, wars, and malnutrition were rampant. Suffering and injustice were commonplace. Personally I don't think that people with handicaps deserve to die. They are still people and I'm sure that they would think that their lives are worth living. Given the circumstances in which they lived their actions were understandable. They just didn't have the resources necessary to spend on children that they knew wouldn't make it to adulthood. I'm sure that killing their "defective" children wasn't something they enjoyed or did lightly. It was most likely a very serious task involving a lot of mourning and sorrow.
2007-09-07 05:30:39 · answer #4 · answered by Link 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For all of the social acceptance of the science of evolution, humans these days are loathe to put it into practice for themselves.
Evolution is working in reverse for modern humanity, as the willfully ignorant are breeding the intelligent out of existance.
I do not advocate the killing of children outright, but if person lacks the strength to live on thier own and cannot contribute anything to society, society should not be forced to put a drain on resources in order to support them.
Death is a part of life, and battling against it is taxing and useless.
Not sure if I answered your question, but thanks for the soapbox.
2007-09-07 05:31:48 · answer #5 · answered by votanone_eye 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Spirituality includes the sense (automatically) that life has
an inherent value NOT depending on what the life
contributes to society and also not depending on the
"quality" of life - since there are too many definitions
and opinions about "quality".
Life is sacred - that is where religion comes onto the
scene to judge social morality and where science ends (one of the main places) it is a consensus of most religions to considers life to be sacred (spiritual dimension) and this idea also taps into the true purpose of religion.
It is in our Declaration of Independence because of these
ideas I bring out - life is mentioned as first on the list (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness - rights come from the creator) -
I think the order is intentional and important. - life first.
What happened to Ms. T. S. Schiavo was a real shame
on society. We need to protect life first and most of all.
2007-09-07 05:45:02 · answer #6 · answered by Nickel-for-your-thoughts 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They also burned left handed people. One of the questions that I find myself asking is what are we doing wrong that 25 years from now our children(actually your kids--cause' I ain't having none--) will be finding absurd. But if you simply read about what Jesus says, you will find no where in his saying to kill anybody. In fact, what we are doing wrong is that we only love those who benefit us to love, and no one else. Let me ask you this? How many people on the street did you give money to in the past week? What if it was your sister or your mother out there? Second, please ask yourself this question, it is not for me so don't answer it, other wise you will break another one of God's commandments. I know you don't like my response. Then again, Jesus was killed for telling people the truth. Nobody likes to hear the truth about them.
2007-09-07 05:34:21 · answer #7 · answered by lam_9 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"They" didn't have the right to do it then, and "they" don't have the right to do it now.
Atheist or not ... any human knows that all men are equal, and all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
There's no exception for infirmity, except in totalitarian countries which have no respect for anything but "the state".
2007-09-07 06:06:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course killing an innocent child is wrong.
A fertilized human egg is not a child.
2007-09-07 05:30:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Killing life with no apparent/humanitarian reason is absolutely wrong!
2007-09-07 05:30:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitler killed children with birth defects.
We kill children by sucking them out of wombs and into drains just because we want to.
Your point?
2007-09-07 05:30:16 · answer #11 · answered by Bob W 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋