News:

Look, I haven't mentioned Zeus, Buddah, or some religion.

Main Menu

After-birth abortion

Started by AnimatedDirt, March 01, 2012, 07:02:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sweetdeath

Quote from: Stevil on March 02, 2012, 06:20:08 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 02, 2012, 05:24:02 PM
I kinda agree with this. A newborn has no recollection of life, death, or even existing. I dont feel terribly bad if a newborn were to die. A toddler ( 2-4yrs) on the other hand is aware of many things by then.

I guess I just really dont see a problem with early or late term abortions.
My compassion is not for the dead, but for those whom they leave behind.
Some people can be crushed, even with an early term miscarriage.

It's true; and every person handles different situstions differently.
Law 35- "You got to go with what works." - Robin Lefler

Wiggum:"You have that much faith in me, Homer?"
Homer:"No! Faith is what you have in things that don't exist. Your awesomeness is real."

"I was thinking that perhaps this thing called God does not exist. Because He cannot save any one of us. No matter how we pray, He doesn't mend our wounds.

DeterminedJuliet

From a completely rational perspective, I don't think an "after-birth" abortion makes much sense. Why would any woman put herself and her body through full-term pregnancy and child-birth if she doesn't want to keep the baby or give the baby up for adoption? That's a hell of a lot of trouble to go through for no reason. They make the point that it might be an option where the parent's didn't know the child had some kind of illness or disease, but I think that's more an argument for screening earlier in pregnancy.

Besides, a lot of issues, like forms of autism, don't present themselves until the child is much older (over one year, for instance). I kinda get the point that there's not much difference between a newborn and a nearly full-term fetus, but there's a HUGE difference between a fetus and a one-year old. One year olds are definitely "people-ish". As far as I know, there are very few diseases that are "invisible" in-utero, but immediately apparent once a child is born.

I just can't imagine a practical scenario where this would be a reasonable choice. They may be doctors, but it seems like a trollish argument to me. 
"We've thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you're dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.

The Magic Pudding

QuoteKilling babies no different from abortion, experts say

The headline seems to be a tad sensationalist.  The normal understanding of an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, a woman doing something with her body.  Once the baby is delivered a woman is not exercising a right to do as she will with her body when she puts baby in a sack and tosses it in the river.

A mother I think should have some rights as to when to resort to the sack, particularly if there is no one acceptable to surrender the child to.  A dirt poor Indian woman with a healthy baby or a western woman with a grievously disabled child may reasonably believe the sack will save the child a life of suffering.

Quote"We take 'person' to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her."

So can I kill some one who is temporarily comatose, how about if they are asleep?  Depressed people had better cheer up or it's the sack for you.  These guys paint a line, at what age I'm not sure, on crossing it baby becomes a person.  I see a full term born baby as more of a person than a three month foetus.  They are more aware, their brains are more developed, they have actually been born which is no small matter.


QuoteHowever, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

The argument of how much effort should be spent keeping babies alive is another matter.  Resources are finite, it's reasonable to question whether resources should be directed towards the general population or a few less viable babies.  Is the quality of life of the child going to be a negative?  Some people would say every effort should be made to keep every baby alive and damn the cost and consideration of suffering.  To some keeping this ideal alive may be more valuable than supporting early childhood education, I'm inclined to disagree.

Sandra Craft

Quote from: fester30 on March 02, 2012, 06:31:20 PM
I even think late-term abortions should be outlawed except for medical necessity.  I have no problem with early term abortions whatsoever.  Problem is, I'm not willing to inject my penis into a uterus-specific subject.  While I may personally disagree with late-term abortions, I really think women should be the ones to make those laws, not men.

A lot of people take that position and I've never understood it at all.  A human life is a human life, whether its early or late in it's pre-birth stage, my only personal problem with abortion is whether there's a good reason for it.  Late term abortions are almost always done for medical reasons -- if you outlawed them for any other reason about 99% would still happen.  Early and mid-term abortions, on the other hand, seem to be the ones that happen on a whim, or for something frivilous like not interfereing with a vacation.  If I were going to support out-lawing abortions (which I'm not) it would be the early ones, not the late ones.
Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

Will

The reason abortions are legal, at least here in the United States, is because we have a Constitutional right to privacy. Because a zygote, embryo, or fetus is biologically linked to the pregnant woman, requiring that biological connection for basic life functions, the zygote, embryo, or fetus is considered to be a part of the pregnant woman's body. The 9th and 14th Amendments help to found the Constitutional concept of a right to privacy. In Roe v. Wade, it was decided that there were two competing legal interests on abortion: the mother's control over her health and protecting the potentiality of human life. Because one right is certain whereas the other is on shaky logical grounds, it was decided that privacy wins out.

One can see clearly this rationale cannot be applied to an infant. As an infant is not inside or otherwise biologically linked to the mother, there is no personal privacy consideration in play, but rather it becomes a case of protecting the almost certain case of human life.

I'm not certain, but I suspect this publication is intended to simply ruffle feathers. No society I'm aware of would allow for the murder of an infant based on the principles of being pro-choice.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

Sandra Craft

Quote from: Will on March 03, 2012, 06:17:46 AM
I'm not certain, but I suspect this publication is intended to simply ruffle feathers. No society I'm aware of would allow for the murder of an infant based on the principles of being pro-choice.

It struck me as a back-handed anti-choice arguement.
Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

The Magic Pudding

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 03, 2012, 06:43:41 AM
It struck me as a back-handed anti-choice arguement.

It does smell like that, I think it must a poe thing.


Quote from: Crocoduck on March 02, 2012, 01:54:10 PM
I can't help but think about Peter Singer weirdness.

"Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living"

I haven't read any of Singer's books but he frequently pops up and he has always seemed a reasonable human to me.
What do you find weird about him?

Anne D.

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 03, 2012, 06:43:41 AM
Quote from: Will on March 03, 2012, 06:17:46 AM
I'm not certain, but I suspect this publication is intended to simply ruffle feathers. No society I'm aware of would allow for the murder of an infant based on the principles of being pro-choice.

It struck me as a back-handed anti-choice arguement.


My first thought was that the article might be fake and that the creators had gone with a reasonably real-sounding journal name. But seemingly, no: http://jme.bmj.com/.

Sandra Craft

Quote from: Anne D. on March 03, 2012, 02:34:57 PM
My first thought was that the article might be fake and that the creators had gone with a reasonably real-sounding journal name. But seemingly, no: http://jme.bmj.com/.

I guess mental masturbators have to show something for their time.
Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

Siz

Quote from: Anne D. on March 03, 2012, 02:34:57 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 03, 2012, 06:43:41 AM
Quote from: Will on March 03, 2012, 06:17:46 AM
I'm not certain, but I suspect this publication is intended to simply ruffle feathers. No society I'm aware of would allow for the murder of an infant based on the principles of being pro-choice.

It struck me as a back-handed anti-choice arguement.


My first thought was that the article might be fake and that the creators had gone with a reasonably real-sounding journal name. But seemingly, no: http://jme.bmj.com/.

BMJ is the UKs most respected industry publication.

When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

Sandra Craft

Quote from: Scissorlegs on March 03, 2012, 07:09:03 PM
BMJ is the UKs most respected industry publication.

Guiding the ethics of medical professionals for I forget how many years.  Everybody slips off the rails sometimes.
Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

The Magic Pudding

The publication may be credible but this doesn't mean the authors motives were as presented.  A journal promoting free thought is going to be vulnerable to letting weird stuff through if presented in a manner that follows the forms.

Quote"The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual."

They define what gives a life form the right to life, in "a sense".
Why didn't the headline say Killing babies no different from abortion in a sense?
Why do they come to such dramatic conclusions when similarities are so tenuous?

Hey Fred, what defines a beings right to life?
Ahhhh,,, dunno.
Would it be OK if I killed you after Big Bang Theory is finished?
Ahmm, no, I wouldn't like that.
Hmm, interesting response.
Dog would it be OK if I kill you?
Ha, no reply, wagging tail doesn't count.
Now stand still dog while I club you to death,
Stop biting, ahhh wait, I attribute your biting to your regard for your own existence.
Babies don't bite, got no teeth, can't say no, got no vocabulary.
I conclude it's OK to kill things if they don't say no or otherwise express their disapproval.

DeterminedJuliet

"We've thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you're dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.

Ali

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on March 04, 2012, 03:58:11 AM
Would it be OK if I killed you after Big Bang Theory is finished?


Although truly told, there may not be much to live for after Big Bang Theory is finished.  :'(   ;D

Too Few Lions

Here's a good response to all the criticism the BMJ's received for printing the article

http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/02/28/liberals-are-disgusting-in-defence-of-the-publication-of-after-birth-abortion/

Appararently the authors have received personally threatening and abusive correspondences, which seems very wrong to me. They've merely thrown a hypothetical moral question out into the public domain.

As an aside, I think we're happy to butcher pigs and other domesticated species by the thousand which are more intelligent and sentient than a newborn baby, yet many get outraged at the thought of possible infanticide in extreme cases. Maybe we should also extend this sacredness we attach to human life to other intelligent species? I'd never heard of Peter Singer before he was mentioned in this thread, but I find his ideas interesting as they are portrayed in this article

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2659