This is incredibly twisted.
Imagine for a moment that you aren't a person that believes that until they take a breath they aren't really human progeny and understand that progeny is still progeny even if it is in an earlier stage than birth. Now, can you give any reason why it would be okay to kill your progeny and how it would be "taking responsibility" towards them?
It's generally accepted people wish for their progeny to do better or, at least, the same as themselves. It's also generally accepted one does not want to see their progeny needlessly suffer. I wonder how many people would abort if they knew, for a certainty, their progeny would die in their teen years from leukemia. Or if they knew, for a certainty, their progeny would be born with massive defects requiring painful operations and they would never leave a hospital setting.
Of course, one has no way of knowing the future, for a certainty, but they can make an "educated" guess. One who is intent on furthering their career, one who has dreams of accomplishing something extraordinary may conclude they would not be a good parent as they would either neglect their progeny or fulfill their obligation with bitterness. They know either scenario would be detrimental to their progeny so why would they subject their progeny to such conditions?
The more one cares about their progeny the more they will ensure they bring them into the most favorable environment possible. Even animals which fight to their death to protect their progeny will kill or abandon them to the elements shortly after birth if one is severely defective. I would conclude they realize the defective progeny would not be able to look after itself; obtain food, defend itself, etc. It's life would be constant suffering.
Say my progeny was in the toddler stage of development, would it be "taking responsibility" if I decided that I needed to perform an extremely late "abortion" on them?
The problem is society requires some cut-off point otherwise the potential for abuse would flourish. On the other hand I could ask is it morally acceptable to prolong a child's life after it's been diagnosed with Tay-Sachs disease at, say, six months of age.
(Excerpt) Tay-sachs: Children with the disease become deaf, blind, and lose the ability to swallow. Their muscle start to atrophy and paralysis sets in. Additional neurological symptoms experienced by children with Tay-Sachs disease include seizures, dementia, and an increased startle response to noise.....
The most common form of the disease presents symptoms when a child is only three to six months old. The disease progresses from there, rapidly proceeding to death by the time the person reaches the age of four or five years. When the infant is born they seem healthy and develop in a regular fashion for the first few months of their life....
Medical science currently has not created a cure for Tay-Sachs disease, or an effective form of treatment. (End)
http://www.disabled-world.com/disability/types/tay-sachs.php
Which is morally preferable; euthanize such children at the time of diagnosis or insist they live through
* Seizures
* Listlessness
* Increasing irritability
* Decreased eye contact
* Increased startle reaction
* Delayed mental and social skills
* Slow body growth with increasing head size
* The infant stops smiling, crawling or rolling over and loses the ability to grasp or reach out
As the disease continues to progress, the symptoms the child experiences become more dominant. The child then begins experiencing symptoms that include:
* Deafness
* Blindness
* Feeding difficulties
* Loss of motor skills
* Abnormal body tone
* Loss of intellectual skills
Then there's cases like (Excerpt) Sue Rodriguez, a 42-year-old woman suffering from the debilitating, terminal illness, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, wishes to have a qualified physician assist her in terminating her life at the time of her choosing. Section 241(b) of the Criminal Code,(1) however, makes it a criminal offence to assist a person to commit suicide. Ms. Rodriguez applied to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for an order declaring s. 241(b) invalid under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter"). The B.C. court dismissed her application and a majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge’s decision. Ms. Rodriguez then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where she argued that s. 241(b) violates sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.
In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and found s. 241(b) to be constitutional. (End)
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp349-e.htm
(Excerpt) As many as 20,000-30,000 people in the United States have ALS, and an estimated 5,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with the disease each year.
The earliest symptoms may include twitching, cramping, or stiffness of muscles; muscle weakness affecting an arm or a leg; slurred and nasal speech; or difficulty chewing or swallowing.....Although the sequence of emerging symptoms and the rate of disease progression vary from person to person, eventually patients will not be able to stand or walk, get in or out of bed on their own, or use their hands and arms. Difficulty swallowing and chewing impair the patient's ability to eat normally and increase the risk of choking..... In later stages of the disease, patients have difficulty breathing as the muscles of the respiratory system weaken. Patients eventually lose the ability to breathe on their own and must depend on ventilatory support for survival. (End)
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/amyotrophiclateralsclerosis/detail_ALS.htm
Are we morally correct to deny the request of euthanasia from a victim of this disease and insist they suffer through that which we know will happen?
Talking about twisted what belief system could possibly justify insisting people endure such suffering only to die within a few years?
