Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"After-birth Abortion..."  
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 12
Posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2259 times:

Heard about this paper that was published in (or on) the Journal of Medical Ethics:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?


Since I had heard about it on either Wilkow or Church, I figured it was hyperbole or mis-represented, but, after reading it, I'm astounded that medical professionals, no, anyone, would think this way.

Now, I understand they are writing about, it appears, specifically, Downs' Syndrome children, it is very troubling. I won't quote and re-quote endlessly, but I will post the abstract and I will place in bold, what I feel is the most troubling statement.

"Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."


When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 561 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2248 times:

Hmmm; now where I'm from...that's called murder no matter if your pro-choice or not.


ILS = It'll Land Somewhere
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3816 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2242 times:

"First they came for the fetuses. I didn't say anything because I wasn't a fetus." etc. etc. etc.

Anyone who had any questions this is what we would end up with once we trivialized and industrialized the practice of abortion mustn't have been paying much attention in class.

I just love the quote from one of the people responsible for this "study" in a different website.

"He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”. "

Remind you of anyone?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7917 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2241 times:

That's one of the worst opinions I ever came across. Could it be that the two authors "just" want to provoke? Even if, it would still be tasteless but somewhat easier to bear.


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2172 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter):
Since I had heard about it on either Wilkow or Church, I figured it was hyperbole or mis-represented, but, after reading it, I'm astounded that medical professionals, no, anyone, would think this way.

The guy who really takes the cake is John Holdren, a Harvard University Professor who has advocated in the past that it should be okay to abort an infant up to two years old.

He also has postulated that sterilants (birth control drugs) should be added to the water we drink, on the grounds that there are already too many people, and certainly too many of the wrong kind (whatever that's supposed to mean).

His brother is President Obama’s “science czar,” Paul Holdren, who once floated the idea of forced abortions, “compulsory sterilization,” and the creation of a “Planetary Regime” that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet.

All this is really nothing new - it's just a regurgitation of the Progressive Eugenics agenda that developed in the late 19th century for a few decades, and then briefly resurged again under Hitler.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2167 times:

Why do I wonder if this is anti-abortion people trolling the debate?

User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2917 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2165 times:

This is murder, plain and simple. For anyone to believe this is scary and ridicoulous.

[Edited 2012-03-04 16:47:08]


The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2161 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
Why do I wonder if this is anti-abortion people trolling the debate?

I'm pro-choice, but some people are pretty sick, and they aren't all locked up either.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2140 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
the cake is John Holdren, a Harvard University Professor who has advocated in the past that it should be okay to abort an infant up to two years old.

Maybe removal of 60 year old nutcases should be considered after birth abortion.

The ethical issue about whether or not a newborn with 'obvious problems' should live, or die, is older than the Bible. People with good hearts has argued that it is merciful to put them 'out of their misery' at birth for that long. I have no doubt that many viable children have been 'born dead' over the centuries, and that the practice continues today. Though always in secret, and where a person handling the birth is unobserved, usually alone, and without any hospital medical support.

I have a brother with Downs Syndrome, he's 51 years old. He is unable to read, do math, etc. He lives in a group home with other men close to his age with similar mental issues.

I have a sister with brain damage from lack of oxygen in surgery when she was an infant (born with a cleft palate). Her mental ability includes reading on a 9th grade level, math short of algebra. She lives in a monitored apartment, and works at a group living facility, doing filing, etc. She is 55.

My sister and brother's need defined our family. Created the focus of the other four children's adult lives, and is still the primary concern of my father, age 87 (My mom passed away about 4 years ago). Because of my brother and sister I have met some incredible people in my lifetime, in many countries around the world. Some in their catagories, some parents and siblings, some professionals who work with them.

It has been an incredibly fulfilling and rewarding experience.

Back about 30 years ago, my family became aware of someone we knew choosing to have a second trimester abortion because testing showed the child would be born with almost no brain. Being raised Roman Catholic, most of us children in our 30s were very unhappy about her decision.

My mother put it very bluntly

"It is none of our, your or my, business. As much as I love your brother and sister, as much joy as they have brought to our lives and the lives of others, I cannot honestly say I would be willing to go through it all again if I had the option. Unless you have lived through it, you have no right to criticize."

I dislike people who have abortions because they are carrying a Downs Syndrome child. But it is not a decision I have had to face, and I do understand somewhat the difficulties they would face in raising such a child.

The child is a person, no if's ands or buts. There is no such thing as 'after birth abortion'. There is murder.

If someone believes it is necessary for whatever reason, have the cojones to admit what they advocate, and accept the responsibilities.


User currently offlinesleekjet From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2045 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2127 times:

They synonym for abortion is "infanticide".


II Cor. 4:17-18
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2119 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):

I'm pro-choice, but some people are pretty sick, and they aren't all locked up either.

My read of the article is that they're trying to say: "if abortion is OK, then why isn't infanticide?" I don't think either of them actually wants to do that.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2072 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
My read of the article is that they're trying to say: "if abortion is OK, then why isn't infanticide?" I don't think either of them actually wants to do that.

Oooo, you're really stretching there, Doc.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2048 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):

Oooo, you're really stretching there, Doc.

No, I am not. I read the article and I see some serious "devils advocate" behavior in it.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3816 posts, RR: 28
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2043 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
"if abortion is OK, then why isn't infanticide?"

Good question, beats the heck out of me.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1991 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
Why do I wonder if this is anti-abortion people trolling the debate?

Regardless of whether a person is pro- or anti-abortion, the killing of an infant, outside the womb is...what?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
My read of the article is that they're trying to say: "if abortion is OK, then why isn't infanticide?" I don't think either of them actually wants to do that.

I disagree. Read the conclusion and their considerations.

Doc, defending these guys is a stretch. They not only argue for infanticide...sorry, after-birth abortion (words are important), in the case of a mentally challenged infant, but they argue it should be permissable if

economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone...

Sorry.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1978 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 14):

Doc, defending these guys is a stretch.

I'm not. I think their article is despicable. I just suspect a different motivation. That said, I denounce anyone who would publish such tripe, including BMJ, a usually respectable journal.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1938 times:

Reading this article made me sick. I'm pro-choice but once the baby is born, let him/her live.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
I see some serious "devils advocate" behavior in it.

The devil is the czar working in the White House.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
The guy who really takes the cake is John Holdren, a Harvard University Professor who has advocated in the past that it should be okay to abort an infant up to two years old.

WOW!  Wow!
That's just SICK!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
He also has postulated that sterilants (birth control drugs) should be added to the water we drink, on the grounds that there are already too many people, and certainly too many of the wrong kind (whatever that's supposed to mean).

His brother is President Obama’s “science czar,” Paul Holdren, who once floated the idea of forced abortions, “compulsory sterilization,” and the creation of a “Planetary Regime” that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet.

All this is really nothing new - it's just a regurgitation of the Progressive Eugenics agenda that developed in the late 19th century for a few decades, and then briefly resurged again under Hitler.

Let's not forget Margaret Sanger. Read some of her quotes;

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon


On abortion:
"Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6661 posts, RR: 35
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1754 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 8):
It has been an incredibly fulfilling and rewarding experience.

Bless you and your family for all of your experiences....WOW. Quite amazing.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 16):
Let's not forget Margaret Sanger. Read some of her quotes;

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon


On abortion:
"Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

Quoting for effect. This woman is the matron saint of the abortion movement.


User currently offlineusflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2026 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1614 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 16):

Let's not forget Margaret Sanger. Read some of her quotes;

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon


On abortion:
"Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

That is why I do not support Planned Parenthood in any way. They may have "officially" changed their views and focus I am not really buying it, even though I lean pro-choice. When they had their Komen issues they did not get an ounce of sympathy from me.


User currently onlineJAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3460 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1544 times:

I think this article is refering to the option to choose to end the life of a child who is born with severe mental abnormalities. In many cases these children would have very little or any quality of life and would be a burden on their families/other until they themselves pass on. Perhaps they are comparing it to euthenasia in cases where a person's quality of life has no chance for improving.


Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1543 times:

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 19):
I think this article is refering to the option to choose to end the life of a child who is born with severe mental abnormalities. In many cases these children would have very little or any quality of life and would be a burden on their families/other until they themselves pass on. Perhaps they are comparing it to euthenasia in cases where a person's quality of life has no chance for improving.

My read is that the article is saying: "if aborting a normal fetus is OK, then killing one is OK, too."

Unacceptable that BMJ would even publish it.


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4252 posts, RR: 29
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1490 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
My read of the article is that they're trying to say: "if abortion is OK, then why isn't infanticide?" I don't think either of them actually wants to do that.

And that is the entire crux of the late-term abortion debate. Knowing a fetus can live outside the womb before full gestation, why is it legal to terminate the life before it is born, but yet could live even unaided in some circumstances before full gestation, whereas once it is born it is considered murder? [No need to answer as that's a rhetorical question.]

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 19):
In many cases these children would have very little or any quality of life and would be a burden on their families/other until they themselves pass on.

And who decides that they would have little "quality of life"? My daughter has Down Syndrome and she lives a very full life as a young woman and has brought joy to everyone whose life she has ever touched. So who would be the turd that would play God and that would say on her behalf or her family's that she would have little "quality of life" and would have provided the option of exterminating her at the time of or shortly after her birth?

That's the problem that occurs when we start valuing life based on a "convenience" factor. We step on to a slippery slope that places a different value on different humans based on their "burden" to others. Eventually, when that burden exceeds a certain financial threshold, medical care will cease and a needle hooked up to a syringe containing a lethal injection will be offered as part of the "Universal Healthcare" coverage.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 8):
It has been an incredibly fulfilling and rewarding experience.

Same here, and I wouldn't trade the experience for anything else in the universe.



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1490 times:

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 19):
I think this article is refering to the option to choose to end the life of a child who is born with severe mental abnormalities. In many cases these children would have very little or any quality of life and would be a burden on their families/other until they themselves pass on. Perhaps they are comparing it to euthenasia in cases where a person's quality of life has no chance for improving.

Read:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 14):
They not only argue for infanticide...sorry, after-birth abortion (words are important), in the case of a mentally challenged infant, but they argue it should be permissable if

economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone...

Oh my, it appears the article is...gone. The above was in the conclusion.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):
My read is that the article is saying: "if aborting a normal fetus is OK, then killing one is OK, too."
Spot on.

Unacceptable that BMJ would even publish it.


Spot on, Doc.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1487 times:

This is why I'm starting to wonder if it was real:

It's gone now, and it never made any major news sources.

My guess is that this was a hack. At least, I'm hoping it was.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1169 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1480 times:

The BMJ response:

http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/...-birth-abortion-editorial-comment/

I sort of see their point- whether or not they (or every right-thinking person) disagrees with the article doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be published. The question is one of academic value.

Unfortunately I'm too lazy to read the paper, so perhaps somebody who has (Doc?) can explain what its academic value might be.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
25 CASINTEREST : it was done in Austraila, based on what I read before,so they aren't bound by 'Roe vs Wade'. What are the rules in Austraila in regards to abortion?
26 fr8mech : Really? Academic value is discussing whether or not an infant should be killed because s/he has somehow become inconvenient? I understand that we sho
27 zckls04 : I'm not arguing whether it has academic value or not- according to the article linked above it was subject to a form of peer-review which suggests it
28 Aesma : I have Malthusian tendencies but this is really stretching it, I wonder what is the purpose of the publication of such "study". Well, some countries h
29 DocLightning : Wow. It actually was real. And the authors actually penned their own names to it. What their actual motivations are... I have no idea.
30 Pyrex : What the heck does that mean?
31 CASINTEREST : That's not the point they are advocating, They are looking at infaticide as just an extension of abortion by a few days. Which is not my view. The is
32 DocLightning : It isn't a valid life. With a modern ICU, I can keep a heart beating almost indefinitely. That's not life.
33 BMI727 : Certainly you of all people can make the distinction between removing life support or refusing treatment versus actively inducing death.
34 DocLightning : Yes, but I'm pointing out that a heartbeat is not life. There are contracting cardiomyocites at 4 weeks' gestation (or earlier). That does not mean t
35 SmittyOne : As a non-religious guy I look at this fairly pragmatically. Once a baby is born, it becomes a citizen (I'm talking US here), and is thus entitled to a
36 slider : Opinion.
37 CASINTEREST : I was speaking from the point of an unassisted heart beat by the body. I was not referring to the myriad defintions of death of which the fetus would
38 DocLightning : True. So you would like to legislate yours? I do not want to legislate mine. Don't like abortion (and I don't)? Don't get one.
39 Yellowstone : Unfortunately, since the article seems to have been taken down, I can only guess at the point they were trying to make. So I'll try to reframe the arg
40 SmittyOne : Good post Yellowstone - and I believe this is the intellectual level at which these kinds of issues should be - but rarely are - debated. Once the mo
41 757gb : Exactly my thoughts... thank you for sharing that.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Supremes: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Is OK posted Wed Apr 18 2007 16:44:39 by WestWing
Partial Birth Abortion Case Back At The Scotus posted Wed Feb 22 2006 05:33:47 by Texdravid
Congress Set To Ban Partial Birth Abortion posted Tue Oct 21 2003 14:51:19 by Alpha 1
FDA Finally Bans Painkiller After 30 Years? posted Sat Nov 20 2010 23:18:59 by Aaron747
Driver Sues Victim's Parents After Fatal Accident posted Mon Nov 15 2010 00:19:20 by TheCommodore
Teen Shot Dead After Halloween Prank posted Mon Nov 1 2010 21:33:51 by futurepilot16
$650,000 Richer After Lap Dance posted Sun Oct 17 2010 15:41:56 by QXatFAT
Just Been In Singapore Grand Prix After The Event posted Mon Sep 27 2010 01:19:51 by fca767
Ford Killing Off North American Ranger After 2011 posted Tue Sep 21 2010 12:56:37 by PHLBOS
Arrests After Possible Threat To Pope posted Fri Sep 17 2010 06:34:39 by oly720man