Are we talking infanticide here?

There's a story of a horrible case in Texas which, I'm sure, repeats itself all over the country each day: 6-month-old child abused by his parents. And terribly abused: "A physician noted that David Coronado Jr. had 42 skeletal injuries."

So, a court-appointed guardian has asked that he be removed from life support because it's "in his best interests".

His parents don't agree, but I think they forfeited their rights somewhere before the broken bone count reached 42.

Anyway, the AP article makes a really odd reference:

"If he survives his injuries, he will have severe and permanent disability as a result of these injuries," a doctor wrote in one report, the newspaper said.

So, because the child will be disabled, we should kill him now?

I understand the notion of removing life support if there's no hope of living... but isn't the act of removing life support because of future disabilities akin to an abortion about 7 months too late in this case?

Are we okay with that in this country today?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

James Dobson and Republican Politics

Commercial comments (Blogging from Word!)

Apologies to Reno, Nevada!