Posted on 05/09/2012 1:00:12 PM PDT by ReformationFan
May 9, 2012 (MercatorNet.com) - In 2006 a Sydney couple sued doctors for the “wrongful life” of their severely disabled son. The case failed in the High Court, which ruled that it was impossible to measure the merits of existence versus non-existence. Earlier this year the couple returned, this time with a lawsuit based on “wrongful birth”. Similar cases have cropped up around in the United States and Europe as well. But they have almost always failed for similar reasons – being alive is better than not being alive.
But is it?
Not every everyone thinks so. David Benatar, a South African philosopher with a utilitarian bent, published a book in 2006 entitled “Better Never to Have Been”. His argument was that “although we may not be able to say of the never-existent that never existing is good for them, we can say of the existent that existence is bad for them.”
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Why not let them speak for themselves, in their old age when they have a perspective from which to formulate an educated answer?
"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."
Mark 14:21 (NIV)
“Strange isn’t it? How one man’s life effects so many others.” - Clarence Oddbody ASC
Unbelievable. I wonder if she would apply the same reasoning to, say, the spotted owl. Or the snail darter. Or the Polar Bears. Hell, you could even employ the same argument about About life on earth in general.
God meant for life to happen, only men try to concoct reasons why God is wrong.
Life is better then no life, regardless of the quality of that life.
Who are we to claim we know what the future has in store for those who suffer debilitating diseases or less than what we consider quality life.
What if a child stopped from living could be the one to come up with a cure for cancer?
It is always the right thing to let God be the one who opens and closes the womb, and allow life to happen.
I've always found that one of the most profound (among many) secularist/liberal paradoxes. The same people who espouse a darwinian weltanschauung, will pull out all the stops to preserve a species that is approaching extinction because of what they themselves would describe as an inability to "adapt." Yet, they are eager to exterminate those humans who they deem "unfit," in spite of the efforts of others to protect and care for them.
Yes, factoring in the infinity of the afterlife; it is likely that many would have been better off to not have been born. However, to be thus tested, you have to first be born.
It’s more than likely that those, who are filing those lawsuits, have no belief in an afterlife. Ironically, they may yet discover that it is they, who would have been better off to not have been born.
What a ridiculous, arrogant statement. To say existence is "bad" for anyone would need infinite wisdom, which this clown certainly does not have.
Caring for the weak, the sick, the elderly, children, etc., is the very essence of civilization.
Take that away, and what do you have left? A group of people justifying savagery on the grounds that their ability to get away with it, justifies it. Nothing less than the law of the jungle, where sociopaths and mass murderers are given authority because their depravities are declared their successes.
They didn’t dig deep enough. Good or bad, better or not better, worthy or not worthy, according to what (and whose) standard? Taking a position on one or the other without agreeing on a standard doesn’t go far.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.