This is one of those situations that I feel is just none of my business and I will leave it to the affected parties.

I don't think life has an innate worth. I think the worth of just about everything is relative (i may need to think about this more)

The worth comes from how we view life; we have to apply worth.

I would not condemn her at all. Ultimately, she should be able to decide whether or not she wants to deal with this for the rest of her life. It's unfortunate that she had to carry the child to term.

My 34 year old daughter Becky has cerebral palsy. She was born 2 lbs 5 ounces and 3 months early. She is also developmentally delayed. We don't use the word "retarded" any mre. Please educate yourself. Handicapped children have a right to live. They have feelings, they smile, they laugh, some like my daughter are more media savy than me, they have sex, some even get married and have children.Seven years before she was born I was a teacher of severely handicapped children. I used to work with a 5 year old boy named Aron who was born with encephalitis exposure-cortically blind and deaf having over 30 seizures a day. He had a right to live and enjoy life while he was alive. He can smile, he can laugh. He did die before he was 10.
Life is precious.

I honestly can't vote either way in this. The way the question is framed makes the situation verge on eugenics rather than euthanasia.

I've always believed that euthanasia is only morally sound if it is the individual's choice to end their life. When dealing with people who are in some way mentally deficient I have never been able to figure out if they should be allowed to make that choice, how do we assess that they understand it? How do we know their quality of life is poor enough for it to be acceptable? I just don't know.

I really find the way this question is worded to be very concerning. It seems like the situation you're proposing is geared toward devaluing human life and justifying euthanasia of the mentally incapable. I don't think other people should try decide something so complicated as the value of such a person's life. I also think the title of your question is misleading as I think most would agree that all life has some inherent value, but some might think based on the situation you pose that there is a decision to be made about whether that value outweighs a person's lack of a capacity to appreciate it. Again I think this is a dangerous question to ask and can go the way of eugenics, sterilization of the mentally unfit or undesirables, etc. The belief in the value of human life is something we should hold fast to. Beginning such a conversation, however philosophical, is dangerous and we have seen the effects of this throughout history.

I think it's selfish if somebody thinks it's ok to take a life because of someone's disorder. Everybody is born with a purpose. I was once a PreK teacher and helped teach a child with cerebral palsy. He knew more then what people gave him credit for.

I'm not prepared to say that this person has no value. That's a slippery slope we don't want to revisit. But if society decides that enthanasia (or abortion) is not allowed, then the family in question needs guaranteed by society all the financial, medical and material support needed. People can contribute to society in all kinds of ways.

Some life has worth... it provides food for species higher on the food chain. But other than that, does any life have worth? Who or what determines that?

We give life value, but with what authority? We value polar bears, koalas, pandas, and elephants, but don't worry too much about the opossum, rabbits, squirrels... in fact, we call them rodents and consider them a pest to be gotten rid of.

The Universe certainly doesn't care. Thousands of babies die before they're born. Baby turtles are tortured while trying to make their way to the ocean. Earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, freezing weather, fires, super hot weather... they all take lives indiscriminately.

That being said, I don't think I could personally handle having to make that choice for any creature, especially a person. I can't imagine that a day would go by that I would question myself or second-guess what I did.

If the child is in constant discomfort and pain and has a very bad quality of life .I am sure some of the people answering this question would rather be euthanized rather than live in this condition . I personally would not wish to live in this way so If it was me I would want to be euthanized Also when I see parents of these children I often feel more sorrow for them than the disabled child ,they often suffer more psychological pain and have life long responsibilities ,put your self in their shoes

It’s not euthanasia if he doesn’t want to die. I am pro-choice to the point of viability and now that the child is alive, it is no one else’s choice.

I would say I don’t think Ebola has any value.

I voted that he has the right to live because he already has life, and there was no mention of him suffering in the question. Furthermore, the assumption was made that " He would not miss his life". Says who? Ssjtin has missed important considerations out of a very complex question. We are also asked if we would "condemn her"...the mother. That seems to me to be a whole different debate.

It's relative. Euthanasia is a fine line between helping hand and murder.

All life is valuable. Period.

When observing Nature , and the natural order of things, most of the time a defective animal is rejected by it's mother , who automatically senses she should not care for it. It may be simply abandoned, or killed outright.

Because we now have the means of keeping all kinds of things alive, that would have died otherwise - I feel that's not always a wise direction to go.

In the case you have presented, I would certainly not fault the mother of this child for such a decision. But then, I never thought humans were "all that", and naturally superior to other species. We're simply other animals, albeit - quite troublesome ones !

And as callous as this may sound, I do not believe we are each born "with a purpose". Sure - once we're here, we do our best to make a go of it. Though for many in the world, life is one continuous struggle.
Fact is we are all in the world, as a result of our parents having had sex !

Does it? You certainly wouldn't guess that if you watch National Geographic Wild. Our real value is to supply food for other life forms so that life can continue to "exist" toward some... um... mass extinction?

You certainly opened a can of worms. If is my Son... I want him to live because it is part of me and also part of his mother also. Will not be loved less. For all those scientist here... that may see it as mercy murder. They continue to sing Hosannas to advancement in technology and science so I will keep him alive with the hope and faith that science will discover a way to lessen his burden to society while keeping him alive... and if is my son... Is my Burden and I will assume responsibility. This ain't Sparta, children are not made to defend motherland and the flawed are not going to be thrown from a cliff. Did you ever heard of medical malpractice? misdiagnose? advancement in medicine? "He ain't heavy, he is my Son and now science get the fuck to work"

Nobody's mentioned the cost of looking after such a child as far as I can see - what are your thoughts? Who should pay? As money is always limited, would you have your taxes pay for this child to be looked after or for a new hospital? Or a person with cancer? Or Mr. Trump's private jet?

Add to your hypothetical pain and suffering. I think that's really the deciding factor. Someone with severe enough developmental problems could require such interventions as feeding tubes and ostomies. If they're immobile, they could develop pressure ulcers. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Answer your own statements first. "He will never contribute to society, he will never start a family and procreate. He would not miss his life, he neither wants to live nor wants to die." How do you know what's going on in his head? How do you know these things you've stated?

You cannot project your own worldview about quality of life onto another person. A worm lives its entire life deaf, dumb, blind and eating mud but in its own way still strives for life and to reproduce more like itself. Do we make judgements about its quality of life? If so we might conclude it should be trod upon for its own good because we may not consider its quality of life as fulfilling as our own. We have no right to make decisions on another creatures (human or otherwise) quality of life.

I believe in Life. Nature will sort things out. But I won't stop life from happening.

I would answer both. But allow me to be more specific.

No life has inherent (intrinsic) value, only instrumental value. Everything of intrinsic value happens in life, so this statement does not diminish the value of life itself.

Now, should a disabled person have the right to live? Sure, as a classic liberal I am in favor of each and every person deciding their own fate according to their own means -- including ending said life in their own terms.

However, how do we help someone that cannot express oneself to continue or end one's life? I honestly don't know. I would have to put myself in their place and ask myself if I, and I alone, would be willing to live like that. And I would probably not. So if I alone was in charge of that decision -- say, for a child of mine -- I would vote for killing the person.

On a tangent, one can also argue whether an individual that cannot move and manifest reason or perception is in fact a person. I honestly don't know.

how do you know what this child is thinking? Due to the fallibility of human judgement I do not think the evaluation of a worthy life should be left in our hands. All life is valuable. If the individual can express their wishes they should be honored. It is not another's decision