They a conscious and autonomous human being. Anencephaly means no consciousness ever. No feelings of pain, no nothing. If I posted pictures of an anencephalatic baby, I can almost guarantee I would get a warn.

A better analogy is would euthanasia be acceptable on a person who has had severe, severe brain trauma who is in a coma, and only the brainstem remains. They are kept alive solely through life support, and if any of the machines were removed they would die. There is no hope of the person regaining consciousness nor can they feel pain or respond to any stimuli.

In case your wondering, the answer is yes, it is morally acceptable.



There is absolutely no cure now or in development. Who knows? In five hundred years we might be able to cause the notochord to close early in development, but once the critical window of about 30 days into the pregnancy has passed, they will never develop a brain. Ever. I don't think you quite understand what anencephaly is. They literally don't have anything besides a brain stem, they don't have a skull really, they are horribly deformed and the rare one that survives birth dies within hours.

This post was edited by Sioux on Nov 2 2009 09:09pm

how do you cure missing brain and skull???? anyhow if it happened to me i would say id do it

hmm as a living thing it deservs the right to fight for survival like anything else and everyone of you that said yes are the ones that got to hell :/ if it exist ofc.

"Living" is not a right lol..

To be honest, I frown upon abortion in general due to the fact that I would prefer to attempt to raise the child myself even if it was without help.
Although - with abnormalities that could change the way the child lives, I would reconsider it to be more realistic for the child, in which case I would say that, yes, it is less wrong.

100% this