because it might cause more suffering?

You wrote:

because it might cause more suffering?

In the short term, yes. But what about the chances to solve more problems long term?

(I am actually just arguing the point, not because I believe it myself. I do think its an interesting moral issue, though.)

s.b.f wrote:

Ya'qub wrote:

(I know you're not suggesting that at all, but it asks an interesting question: why not do that?)

How would the child feel about that?

What about the argument that it is a small price to pay for the greater good of humanity?

ask a muslim scholar in your area, i doubt the morning after pill is permitted. It's different from the pill. It;s like saying oops i got pregnant lets get rid of this baby.

s.b.f wrote:

Ya'qub wrote:

s.b.f wrote:

Ya'qub wrote:

(I know you're not suggesting that at all, but it asks an interesting question: why not do that?)

How would the child feel about that?

What about the argument that it is a small price to pay for the greater good of humanity?

In that case, how many children do you think should be used in the trial?

I don't think there should be a trial. But thousands of children die of starvation every day in the world, so the World at Large doesn't seem too concerned a few thousand deaths as long as we don't have to watch it on TV.

Hajjar wrote:

ask a muslim scholar in your area, i doubt the morning after pill is permitted. It's different from the pill. It;s like saying oops i got pregnant lets get rid of this baby.

Is it?! How?

Ya'qub wrote:

I don't think there should be a trial. But thousands of children die of starvation every day in the world, so the World at Large doesn't seem too concerned a few thousand deaths as long as we don't have to watch it on TV.

Too right.

People die everyday and mourning each and everyone is not really possible. if you even try to go ten percent on it you will not be concentrating on anything else that happens.

As for a cure for genetic diseases - that can happen where the majority of scientific research is NOT done on humans.

in reply to morning after pill. Need to ask a scholar for assurance but. The morning after pill can be used to prevent an egg being released, or prevent an egg being fertilised. This is similar to a regular pill, and the regular pill seems to be permitted by most scholars. But the other thing that the morning after pill does is abort a pregnancy. It does this by forcing a fertilised egg off the lining of the womb. I know for certain this aspect of the pill would not be permitted. Especially if it was known the woman was pregnant and wanted the morning after pill to abort the baby.

I don't know anybody personally who has downs syndrome or has a child with downs syndrome but I have met a few people with downs at work and I would hardly call it a life threatening condition. They do live shorter lives, mostly til their fourties, but maybe even longer, and they do have learning difficulties, but many live on their own and have jobs.

My sister is expecting and she too refused the tests for downs syndrome, as even if the child does have the condition it's not like they can (or even would if they could) abort the child anyway. Whatever is written for them they will surely get.

I don't think a child having a short life expectancy is good enough reason to abort the child. Any one of us could die anytime, we have no guarantee we'll live long lives.

Ya'qub wrote:

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

but then ud have to abort it and therefore killing it

When exactly does it become a 'person'? You can't say killing it is 'wrong' just because it's 'alive'.

Why not? Anyway its still going to become a person as it gradually develops, its not like its randomly going to become a person

and i agree with what Hajjar and Imaani have said.

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

Ya'qub wrote:

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

but then ud have to abort it and therefore killing it

When exactly does it become a 'person'? You can't say killing it is 'wrong' just because it's 'alive'.

Why not? Anyway its still going to become a person as it gradually develops, its not like its randomly going to become a person

Interesting point. Is the potential of someone becoming a fully-grown human enough for them to be called a human?

Do they give out medals for Fastest Potential Running? Or do they wait til the actual race is run? What about on the Day of Judgement? Is "I would have repented and become a good person if only I'd lived for a few more years," a good excuse?

And even though those examples aren't the same as with unborn babies, should we apply the same principals?

(This is like AS Philosophy all over again!)

Ya'qub wrote:

Interesting point. Is the potential of someone becoming a fully-grown human enough for them to be called a human?

Do they give out medals for Fastest Potential Running? Or do they wait til the actual race is run? What about on the Day of Judgement? Is "I would have repented and become a good person if only I'd lived for a few more years," a good excuse?

And even though those examples aren't the same as with unborn babies, should we apply the same principals?

(This is like AS Philosophy all over again!)

I dont think those principles should apply because i dont think its the same. Yes that *potential* fastest player may not *actually* be the fastest runner and a person may or may not repent their sins if they were given a second chance BUT when an is fertilised it will become a cell and the cell will divide into more cells...and it WILL become a baby. Thats a fact. Whether its deformed, disabled or whatever, its still a baby.

Also the doctors may not actually be right, ok so they're right like 99.9% (im guesing maybe its less then that?) but what if your childs results are the 0.01 they get wrong? You have no way of knowing though, you just have to wait for the future to reveal its self. If parents did the test and they found out theyr'e child "would" be serioulsy ill then theyr'e just going to get all emotional and maybe it may even lead to an abortion even though there was a chance that that baby would grow up to be perfectly normal or just not as bad as the doctors first said.

When my cousin was born the doctors sid he would be completley disabled and would be able to speak or anything. Yet he did learn to speak, infact he used to talk loads! and he was so clever mashallah, he wasnt able to walk but he could sit up with assictance. He may have been disabled but apart from that he was like any young child, happy, cheerfull, loved to have fun and throwed tantrums when e ddnt get his own way. He passed away on good friday but no, his death was not linked to him being disabled and even though it was harder to look after him for his parents than it would be for a "normal" child but he brought joy to their lives and im sure if they would love to have him back and would never opt for an abortion if they could go back in time or something.

Anyway Islamically the only reason an abortion is allowed is if the mother's life is at risk.

sorry about the waffling hope it all made sense though - im not good with words! lol

Someone mentioned on Tribune one day that 93% of pregnancies diagnosed with Down's Syndrome in the tests are terminated.

Quite a high figure?

Yeah, The Power Of Silence it did make sense. Thanks for sharing that.

You wrote:

Someone mentioned on Tribune one day that 93% of pregnancies diagnosed with Down's Syndrome in the tests are terminated.

Quite a high figure?

Wow that is a very high figure. If the case, then it may explain why we don't see many people with downs.

If anyone is interested in the issue of raising children with Downs Syndrome, a novel which is based on it is The Memory Keeper's Daughter By Kim Edwards - I have it, but have not yet read it, so no spoilers please!

(If you love galaxy chocolate, you may even be able to get it for free with its current promotional offer...)