Choice (Score 1)

I think many posters here are missing the boat. I don't think that anyone is advocating (patricide). Singer is simply advocating the choice of the parent. You ask; "who decides?" and "where do we draw the line". The parent. Singer argues that the parent should be able to make the choice for their child as to wether or not they should be required to live a life of suffering.

Should parents be required to destroy their lives in order to pay for the medical bills of a child that will most likely live no more than a year? I would argue no. What happens in societies where technologies to keep the child alive are not availabale? The child dies. Why not ease the pain? If the government requires that a parent keep a severely disabled child alive, then they should provide the resources to do so.

If the parents value their child's life at any expense, then they will do what they can to preserve that life. Shouldn't someone that values quality of life be able to do what they feel is right as well?

The baby has rights!! But when do those rights begin? When it is born? When it is concieved? One could argue on this topic till their blue in the face. I would argue not until a child has had the chance to develop. These babies will never get that chance. What about teenage mothers dumping their babies in a dumpster? Those children would have the chance to lead a full life.

At no time was there any mention of "pulling the plug" on individuals that accquired these disabilities after birth. They have had the chance to live a full life. Some severely disabled infants don't.

It all boils down to this. Should people be allowed to end their lives if they are suffering (that's just a whole other can of worms)? If we decide that adults have that choice, then in the case of a newborn I would argue that it becomes the parent's choice.

"You know what makes America great? Everybody has the right to be wrong!"