News:

There is also the shroud of turin, which verifies Jesus in a new way than other evidences.

Main Menu

After-birth abortion

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

Previous topic - Next topic

AnimatedDirt


hismikeness

I've long been a supporter of up to 30th trimester abortions, since I have met some really douchey 10 year olds.  ;D

And, to be clear before any of my words might be taken out of context, my tongue is firmly in cheek.
No churches have free wifi because they don't want to compete with an invisible force that works.

When the alien invasion does indeed happen, if everyone would just go out into the streets & inexpertly play the flute, they'll just go. -@UncleDynamite

Tank

It's not a new idea. Deformed babies have been simply left to die in the past. But personally I would say that the measure of a society is how it threats the most vulnerable within it and I can't think of anything more vulnerable than a child. The idea of killing a baby is also completely unnecessary now as there are way more people who wish to adopt than there are babies to adopt. 
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

AnimatedDirt

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."

QuoteRather than being "actual persons", newborns were "potential persons". They explained: "Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a 'person' in the sense of 'subject of a moral right to life'

Is this really the direction of a "liberal society"?

Stevil

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 01, 2012, 07:46:59 PM
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."

QuoteRather than being "actual persons", newborns were "potential persons". They explained: "Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a 'person' in the sense of 'subject of a moral right to life'

Is this really the direction of a "liberal society"?
How can one measure the moral status of an infant or of anything for that matter? Morality as with some people's gods are immeasurable concepts lacking of any physicality whatsoever.
What does "subject of a moral right to life" even mean? How can a person's ability to live be moral or immoral?

AnimatedDirt

Quote from: Stevil on March 01, 2012, 08:23:15 PM
What does "subject of a moral right to life" even mean? How can a person's ability to live be moral or immoral?

Not that I necessarily agree, however I can see the "logic" if one has no issue with late-term abortions or almost any abortion for that matter.

Stevil

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 01, 2012, 08:44:46 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 01, 2012, 08:23:15 PM
What does "subject of a moral right to life" even mean? How can a person's ability to live be moral or immoral?

Not that I necessarily agree, however I can see the "logic" if one has no issue with late-term abortions or almost any abortion for that matter.

There is a difference between abortion before the fetus can survive outside of the womb and abortion after, in one instance you have to do something special to intentionally kill it, while in the other scenario it will die as a result of extraction.

But you can't put logic onto morals and how they relate to something in the physical world, they are immeasurable, you can't even prove that they exist, let alone link them to something physical.

AnimatedDirt

Quote from: Stevil on March 01, 2012, 08:50:51 PM
There is a difference between abortion before the fetus can survive outside of the womb and abortion after, in one instance you have to do something special to intentionally kill it, while in the other scenario it will die as a result of extraction.

But you can't put logic onto morals and how they relate to something in the physical world, they are immeasurable, you can't even prove that they exist, let alone link them to something physical.

The fetus cannot survive without another providing for it outside the womb.

All I'm saying is that I somewhat agree with:
Quote"The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises."
.

Too Few Lions

#8
I think it's a valid question to be raised, albeit a very brave one given the outrage that would obviously follow.
As Tank's said, exposure or termination of disabled or unwanted babies has generally happened anyway throughout human history, and I imagine it still goes on in some of the less developed world to this day. I think most people would create an division between killing a foetus and a neonate, and the authors of the article are right to question that. Although I also think this is just an article in a journal where a couple of academics are playing devil's advocate.

I also think you misunderstood the point about a liberal society AD. The authors aren't saying that potentially killing disabled babies is somehow part of a liberal society, but that people who make abusive and threatening posts against people just asking moral questions are opposing the values of a liberal society. We should be free to ask moral questions without being threatened by fanatics.

Crocoduck

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"
As we all know, the miracle of fishes and loaves is only scientifically explainable through the medium of casseroles
Dobermonster
However some of the jumped up jackasses do need a damn good kicking. Not that they will respond to the kicking but just to show they can be kicked
Some dude in a Tank

Sandra Craft

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 01, 2012, 08:44:46 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 01, 2012, 08:23:15 PM
What does "subject of a moral right to life" even mean? How can a person's ability to live be moral or immoral?

Not that I necessarily agree, however I can see the "logic" if one has no issue with late-term abortions or almost any abortion for that matter.

Since late term abortions are almost always done out of medical necessity, not choice or whim, I don't think they enter into this discussion.  In any case, I think morals are way too subjective to be part of a decision on whether anyone deserve to continue living, no matter what their circumstances are.
Sandy

  

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

Sweetdeath

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 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.
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.

Stevil

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.

fester30

First, morals and values are relative.  Some may be appalled by ideas that may seem like no big deal to others.

As for the "liberal society" comment, I don't understand how the Republicans and conservatives can claim monopoly on Christian ideas just because they are anti-abortion (I refuse to use pro-life since they are also pro death penalty) and anti-homosexual.  Jesus, I imagine, would have loved health care for all.

Now that I'm done with my rant... I personally cannot stomach the after-birth abortion idea.  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.


AnimatedDirt

Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 02, 2012, 10:59:58 AM
I also think you misunderstood the point about a liberal society AD. The authors aren't saying that potentially killing disabled babies is somehow part of a liberal society, but that people who make abusive and threatening posts against people just asking moral questions are opposing the values of a liberal society. We should be free to ask moral questions without being threatened by fanatics.

You might be right.  The way I read this article is that they are making this claim or bouncing this idea, so to speak, in light of the already generally accepted idea of abortion being pro-choice or in the least relaying this thinking back to those that are pro-choice/abortion.  The logic works (for me) in both pre or post-birth abortions.  If it were to be a real decision to make, it would be (in my mind) a logical extension of thinking already held on the pro-choice/abortion side.  Further, that most people believe morality to be subjective lends it more credibility. 

I still stand on the pro-choice side and also cannot stomach the thought of after-birth abortions and/or late-term abortions.  I almost cannot stand ANY abortion, but I do recognize it is not my call to make.