It's less a decision and more a visceral response, this knowing the difference between "human" and "sub-human."

I can understand the visceral response to the harlequin baby, its appearance and its suffering.  I still consider it to be human.  Problem is that there were, and are, people who have a visceral response to those who are not "perfect" by virtue of their skin colour or disability and who would consider those people to be "sub-human" for those reasons.

In fact, the recent uproar in the US about Scotland's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds would seem to indicate that many consider him to be "sub-human" and therefore not deserving of mercy or even life because of the actions for which he was convicted.

I find it disturbing that you think that the visual formation of a creature would make it not have a right to exist or affect any of it's rights.  The fact that it disgusts you is also  very saddening to me.  I could love a harlequin baby as much as any other baby.  What does its looks have to do with its inherent right to be loved?  Isn't this the same as racism, to say that if someone is not made the way you and others you know are that they are disgusting as human beings?  We are genetically like that, different from others, and we are working to be recognized as viable even with our differences.  Scary how you put things here.  I am hoping that I am misunderstanding you.

This is not the same as racism. Differing racial characteristics (black, white, Asian, etc.) do not constitiute sub-humanness.

But harlequin babies ... they're diseased. They're wrong. That's where the visceral horror comes from, from the comprehension of this profound wrongness. But they're helpless and blameless victims of circumstance. They can't be blamed for their own grave misfortune. It turns my stomach even now to imagine the reactions of those in the delivery room ...

I think babies are loud, and I can't stand them because I am sensitive to high pitched noise

  Being diseased is neither wrong nor sub-human.  This is the first time I have never heard of this kind of thinking from someone who generally professes to be a "nice person".  I don't see where this fits into the ideals of decent treatment of other humans.

Being diseased is neither wrong nor sub-human.

That depends on how disease is viewed by society.

John Merrick had Proteus Syndrome his whole life but he was born human. And he was normal at birth. John Merrick's life is the perfect illustration of our reaction to physical ugliness. From the man who treated him like an animal at the circus sideshow to the other man, Dr. Treves, who found him a home, friends, and made his life comfortable. But ultimately Treves couldn't do anything to cure John of his condition.

I admit I'm not brave enough to care for a harlequin baby. I would not be able to touch it, look at it, be in the same room with it. I would not be able to listen to its cries. I'm too sensitive. The thought of such helpless suffering, such diease, in a helpless newborn human being ... it would drive me away. Not out of hatred or contempt. Out of fear. Out emotional and spiritual torment. It would hurt me too badly to see a such badly deformed infant. I hope you understand.

Animal babies are cuter. Human babies are cute andlook like littlebaldtoothless old men . *gurgle*

OOpsie. My spacebar is busted.

Thanks for being so candid.  It saddens me so much, makes me want to go out and find those children who are rejected because of perceived ugliness and take them all in.  Really, really saddens me.  I didn't know people were so horrified by lack of visual conformity.  I knew there was always a scary moment when something you think will look a certain way is the opposite, but I thought a caring person would want to work through the scariness of non-conforming features or the scariness of sickness or pain and be able to accept all creatures.  

   I guess the truth is that visual conformity is the only thing that lets us be accepted, and our autistic differences are hated and disgust people.  I just didn't think that other autistic people would feel this way.  I honestly thought that people who believed in good would put forth the effort to work through these feelings.

I wouldn't go that far. What does visual conformity matter to blind people?

Hmm. Reminds me of a scene from Mary Shelley's novel
Frankenstein where the Creature wanders into that hovel in the woods where the poor family lives. Inside, an old blind man is playhing the flute. He hears the Creature approach, welcomes him in, and exchanges a few kind words with him. Presumably, the only reason the old man does not flee in horror is because he can't see the Creature's ugliness. Instead, the old blind man through his "blindness" can perceive the Creature's loneliness and need for human warmth. The old man is able to "see" the Creature's essential humanity.

What a great story that was ...

We're wired to go "Awww..." It's part of the reason humans are able to be fruitful and multiply. It's more than people being nice.

Is there any treatment or cure for harlequin babies? I thought if a lot of skin cream were applied to them that eventually their sores would heal. Then again, if the breaks in their skin also affected them internally, it would be so much more difficult. Could they be given pain killers eg. morphine so they wouldn't suffer so much? Surely something can be done for them.

You can't give morphine to a baby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlequin_type_ichthyosis