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, 5330 posts, RR: 14
Posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2287 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 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2276 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, 3928 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2270 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, 7943 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2269 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, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2200 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, 19371 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2195 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, 2963 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2193 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, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2189 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 onlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7559 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2168 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, 2046 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2155 times:

They synonym for abortion is "infanticide".


II Cor. 4:17-18
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19371 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2147 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, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2100 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, 19371 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2076 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, 3928 posts, RR: 28
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2071 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, 5330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2019 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, 19371 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2006 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 onlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39683 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1966 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, 6785 posts, RR: 34
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1782 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, 2105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1642 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 offlineJAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3495 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1572 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, 19371 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1571 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, 4313 posts, RR: 28
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1518 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, 5330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1518 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, 19371 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1515 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, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1508 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.
User currently offlineCASINTEREST From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4461 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1522 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 24):
Unfortunately I'm too lazy to read the paper, so perhaps somebody who has (Doc?) can explain what its academic value might be.

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?

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

I think they are somewhat looking at it from a phiosophical standpoint, that isn't bound by the 14th amendment and interpretation, of privacy and surviveability as is done in the USA.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 26, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1509 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 24):
The question is one of academic value.

Really? Academic value is discussing whether or not an infant should be killed because s/he has somehow become inconvenient?

I understand that we should discuss contrarian ideas. I understand that we should discuss 'on the edge' or 'pushing the envelope' theories. But, what was discussed (and, I believe, advocated) by this paper was infanticide...murder.

Quoting CASINTEREST (Reply 25):
What are the rules in Austraila in regards to abortion?

Abortion is not the question here...infanticide is. I'm sure the laws in Australia are the same as in any other civilized nation.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 27, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1509 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26):
Really? Academic value is discussing whether or not an infant should be killed because s/he has somehow become inconvenient?

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 does. I'm just saying that that's the criteria on which its publication should be judged, not one of whether it's a savory point of view or not. This is a medical journal- its target audience is not the public.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6516 posts, RR: 9
Reply 28, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1497 times:

I have Malthusian tendencies but this is really stretching it, I wonder what is the purpose of the publication of such "study".

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 2):
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.

Well, some countries have legalized abortion decades ago and it doesn't mean it's trivial or industrial, it means it's safer and less traumatic. But I'll give it to you, I didn't have a priest or sister as a teacher.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19371 posts, RR: 58
Reply 29, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1475 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 24):
The BMJ response:

Wow. It actually was real.

And the authors actually penned their own names to it.

What their actual motivations are... I have no idea.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3928 posts, RR: 28
Reply 30, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1468 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 28):
But I'll give it to you, I didn't have a priest or sister as a teacher.

What the heck does that mean?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineCASINTEREST From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4461 posts, RR: 2
Reply 31, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1439 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26):
Abortion is not the question here...infanticide is. I'm sure the laws in Australia are the same as in any other civilized nation.

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 issue should not be published ,as it pushes some serious boundries and ignores many years of precedents. However if you live in the fantasy land they live in, where a beating heart can be silenced by external means legally, at what point is that beating heart a valid life?



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19371 posts, RR: 58
Reply 32, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1417 times:

Quoting CASINTEREST (Reply 31):

The issue should not be published ,as it pushes some serious boundries and ignores many years of precedents. However if you live in the fantasy land they live in, where a beating heart can be silenced by external means legally, at what point is that beating heart a valid life?

It isn't a valid life.

With a modern ICU, I can keep a heart beating almost indefinitely. That's not life.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 33, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1409 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
With a modern ICU, I can keep a heart beating almost indefinitely. That's not life.

Certainly you of all people can make the distinction between removing life support or refusing treatment versus actively inducing death.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19371 posts, RR: 58
Reply 34, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1403 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33):

Certainly you of all people can make the distinction between removing life support or refusing treatment versus actively inducing death.

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 that the fetus is a living being.


User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 35, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1363 times:

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 all of the protections thereunto belonging. So infanticide of disabled children is out of the question in my opinion, unless we want citizens or even worse the Government getting in the business of determining who (other than themselves) gets to live or die based on their perceived value to society. Which I don't.

Prior to being born, a fetus is inside of another citizen, so we have an issue of the conflict between the rights of an actual citizen to make choices regarding what goes on inside of her body vs. a perceived right to life on the part of the fetus (a 'soon to be citizen'). Which is why the abortion debate is challenging even without the religious issue of God creating life at conception etc.

In other words, it seems pretty arbitrary to me to say that at any point up until birth you can kill the fetus, but the instant it 'breaks the plane' into the outside world it is protected by the Constitution. My opinion is that if at some point a fetus becomes viable outside the womb with some high probability of success...I suppose doctors/scientists could tell us what that point really is...then from that point forward abortion of the fetus or killing of the infant should no longer be the prerogative of the mother. Because in effect you have a person who happens to be riding out the last part of the gestation process in his/her mother who could just as easily have been born and viable earlier.

And since I don't think it is fair to "have one's cake and eat it, too", the wrongful death of a fetus in the criminal or civil courts should probably also only apply after that point of viability. That is, if a person assaulted a woman in early pregnancy they would not be liable for the death of the fetus in the event of a miscarriage, too.

Bottom line, bringing it back to the topic, I think that this kind of article is in poor taste but a legitimate topic of discussion. Which would/should end pretty quickly if readers choose to uphold a citizen's (US) Constitutional right to live as a non-negotiable item. Ambiguous Terry Schiavo-like issues of "is this person actually alive" would have to be decided in the courts deliberately, case by case, simply because we don't have a better answer at this point in time, and because mechanically prolonging a body's functions simply because we have the technology to do so may not be the right choice either.


User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6785 posts, RR: 34
Reply 36, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1305 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
That does not mean that the fetus is a living being.

Opinion.


User currently offlineCASINTEREST From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4461 posts, RR: 2
Reply 37, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1302 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
It isn't a valid life.

With a modern ICU, I can keep a heart beating almost indefinitely. That's not life.

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 not survive within the womb



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19371 posts, RR: 58
Reply 38, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1258 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 36):
Opinion

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.


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 39, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1229 times:

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 argument in a way that isn't "we should be able to kill infants." Mini-essay incoming...

Goal: Develop an ethical theory concerning the acceptability of terminating life.

Attempt 1: It is wrong to kill.

Response: Too simple. We kill all the time. Even the strictest vegan is just fine with killing plants to fill their caloric need, and no one sheds a tear for the dead bacteria killed by antibiotics. Yet those plants and bacteria are very much alive.

Attempt 2: It is wrong to kill certain lives.

Response: Okay, which lives?

Attempt 3: It is wrong to kill human lives.

Response: Problematic on several levels.

- First, there's the issue of abortion. A fetus is a human life, in the sense that it is carrying on metabolism and cell division, and has a distinct genetic code from its mother/"host" (and therefore is not the same organism as the mother). Yet it is widely accepted that it is okay to kill fetuses, at least up to a certain stage of development.

- Second, there's the case of individuals in permanent vegetative states. It is widely (though certainly not universally) accepted that allowing individuals in PVSs to die by withholding treatment is morally acceptable. However, death by withholding treatment may be painful and extended; hence, many people consider euthanasia morally acceptable, even though it takes a human life.

- Third, this ignores the fact that evolution keeps us from strictly defining "human." There is an unbroken chain of ancestors stretching back from modern humans to Homo heidelbergensis, to Homo ergaster, to Homo habilis, and so on back through the earliest primates and beyond. Where exactly along that line did we become human, and thus morally unacceptable to kill?

- Fourth, it ignores the fact that there are many conceivable non-human lives which we would also find morally unacceptable to kill. Suppose we met an extraterrestrial alien of similar intelligence to our own. Most people would agree that killing that organism would be wrong. Or suppose that one day we develop or discover an artificial intelligence with similar cognitive power to our own, including the ability to develop its own personality. "Killing" that entity (by shutting off the computer or erasing its programming) would arguably be just as morally wrong as killing a human.

Attempt 4: It is wrong to terminate entities of sufficiently advanced cognitive ability.

Response: This maps pretty well with our instinctive understanding of the morality of killing. It addresses all four of the above issues. Fetuses and individuals in PVSs have no cognitive ability, so killing them is generally accepted. Aliens and AIs have similar cognitive ability to our own, so killing them is wrong. It also explains why we're okay with killing certain organisms and not others. Generally, the more cognitively advanced the species, the less we're willing to kill it. Killing plants, bacteria, and fungi is perfectly acceptable (no cognitive activity). Killing insects and small animals (snakes, mice, etc.) is generally acceptable, though doing so without a good reason might be considered cruel. But killing something like a whale, dolphin, gorilla, chimpanzee, etc. - something with high levels of cognitive activity - is only acceptable in the most desperate of situations, e.g. pharmaceutical trials where less advanced animals can't give us the info we need to develop life-saving drugs.

Potential contradiction to above theory: We find the killing of human infants morally repugnant. However, we generally accept the killing of certain (usually livestock) animals, such as cows and pigs, which are cognitively more advanced than human infants.

Challenge to the reader: Resolve the above contradiction.

My two cents on the issue - the notion that we need to have a logically coherent justification for all our ethical norms ignores the way that our ethics/morality came to be. It's an evolved tool for promoting the survival of the species. The reason why we find the killing of infants repugnant isn't because we can prove that it's wrong to kill them, it's because the folks who were okay with killing babies had fewer babies and eventually died out. Likewise, the reason why we're okay with killing pigs (even though they're more cognitively capable than babies) isn't because we proved that it's okay to kill them, it's because the folks who were okay with it got more food and thus had more kids than those who weren't.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 40, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1171 times:

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 39):

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 moral issues have been articulated we can talk about where Government should be involved, acknowledging that we'll never have universal agreement on them!

Or we can just take ultrasounds of all vaginas and call it a day (sorry, wrong thread!).

[Edited 2012-03-08 09:38:02]

User currently offline757gb From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 676 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1061 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 17):
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.

Exactly my thoughts... thank you for sharing that.



God is The Alpha and The Omega. We come from God. We go towards God. What an Amazing Journey...
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