Happy Atheist Forum

Community => Social Issues and Causes => Topic started by: AnimatedDirt on March 01, 2012, 07:02:31 PM

Title: After-birth abortion
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 01, 2012, 07:02:31 PM
Interesting thinking.

Killing Babies No Different from Abortion, Experts say (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html)

"After-birth Abortions"
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: hismikeness on March 01, 2012, 07:25:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Tank on March 01, 2012, 07:34:27 PM
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. 
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: 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"?
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Stevil on March 01, 2012, 08:23:15 PM
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?
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Stevil on March 01, 2012, 08:50:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 01, 2012, 08:59:55 PM
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."
.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Too Few Lions on March 02, 2012, 10:59:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: 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"
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Sandra Craft on March 02, 2012, 03:35:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Sweetdeath on March 02, 2012, 05:24:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: fester30 on March 02, 2012, 06:31:20 PM
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.

Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 02, 2012, 06:43:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Sweetdeath on March 02, 2012, 07:12:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: DeterminedJuliet on March 02, 2012, 09:30:23 PM
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. 
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: The Magic Pudding on March 03, 2012, 03:46:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Sandra Craft on March 03, 2012, 05:16:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Will on March 03, 2012, 06:17:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Sandra Craft 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.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: The Magic Pudding on March 03, 2012, 12:28:50 PM
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?
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: 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/ (http://jme.bmj.com/).
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Sandra Craft on March 03, 2012, 06:19:04 PM
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/ (http://jme.bmj.com/).

I guess mental masturbators have to show something for their time.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Siz on March 03, 2012, 07:09:03 PM
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/ (http://jme.bmj.com/).

BMJ is the UKs most respected industry publication.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Sandra Craft on March 03, 2012, 07:13:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: The Magic Pudding on March 04, 2012, 03:58:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: DeterminedJuliet on March 04, 2012, 04:06:09 AM
lol
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Ali on March 04, 2012, 06:00:52 PM
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
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Too Few Lions on March 04, 2012, 07:03:09 PM
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
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Sandra Craft on March 04, 2012, 07:07:44 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 04, 2012, 07:03:09 PM
Maybe we should also extend this sacredness we attach to human life to other intelligent species?

As much as I love bacon, I'm trying to do this.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Too Few Lions on March 04, 2012, 09:38:56 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 04, 2012, 07:07:44 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 04, 2012, 07:03:09 PM
Maybe we should also extend this sacredness we attach to human life to other intelligent species?

As much as I love bacon, I'm trying to do this.
same goes. I really really love smoked bacon, but I am seriously considering giving up eating other mammals, and I'm uncomfortable with the way we kill them on an industrial scale.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Sandra Craft on March 04, 2012, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 04, 2012, 09:38:56 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 04, 2012, 07:07:44 PM
[As much as I love bacon, I'm trying to do this.
same goes. I really really love smoked bacon, but I am seriously considering giving up eating other mammals, and I'm uncomfortable with the way we kill them on an industrial scale.

And the horrifying conditions they live in before being killed.  I know there's a movement afoot for kinder raising of food animals but I'm finding lately that even that gives me a bad conscience.  If there were nothing else to eat it would be different but I have no real reason to eat meat.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Too Few Lions on March 05, 2012, 10:55:01 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 04, 2012, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 04, 2012, 09:38:56 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 04, 2012, 07:07:44 PM
[As much as I love bacon, I'm trying to do this.
same goes. I really really love smoked bacon, but I am seriously considering giving up eating other mammals, and I'm uncomfortable with the way we kill them on an industrial scale.

And the horrifying conditions they live in before being killed.  I know there's a movement afoot for kinder raising of food animals but I'm finding lately that even that gives me a bad conscience.  If there were nothing else to eat it would be different but I have no real reason to eat meat.
same goes. It wouldn't be hard for me to give it up either, as I my girlfriend doesn't eat meat, so I never really get to buy any (apart from a few rashers of bacon now and again!)
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Asmodean on March 05, 2012, 11:46:36 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 04, 2012, 09:38:56 PM
same goes. I really really love smoked bacon, but I am seriously considering giving up eating other mammals, and I'm uncomfortable with the way we kill them on an industrial scale.
Worry not! If you do, it will mean more meat for The Asmo  :D

We generally do a "better" job of killing animals than hyenas, for example, do we not?
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: The Magic Pudding on March 05, 2012, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on March 05, 2012, 11:46:36 AM
We generally do a "better" job of killing animals than hyenas, for example, do we not?

That's something you could argue about.
But it's not just how they die, there's how we make them live to be considered.
Hyenas, lions, leopards keep other animals in constant fear pretty much from when they're born.  I won't venture to compare that to what we do for now, it's a fucked up system though, don't know why people are so keen to ascribe its design to their saviour.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Asmodean on March 05, 2012, 12:20:15 PM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on March 05, 2012, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on March 05, 2012, 11:46:36 AM
We generally do a "better" job of killing animals than hyenas, for example, do we not?

That's something you could argue about.
But it's not just how they die, there's how we make them live to be considered.
Hyenas, lions, leopards keep other animals in constant fear pretty much from when their born.  I won't venture to compare that to what we do for now, it's a fucked up system though, don't know why people are so keen to ascribe its design to their saviour.

Yes! Listen to the wise Pudding!

My burger, it did not live a life in fear of The Asmo, therefore, when Asmos attack, it gets what it deserved (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSeS4JS08TI).
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Sandra Craft on March 05, 2012, 03:36:00 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 05, 2012, 10:55:01 AM
same goes. It wouldn't be hard for me to give it up either, as I my girlfriend doesn't eat meat, so I never really get to buy any (apart from a few rashers of bacon now and again!)

You're lucky -- my girlfriend does eat meat, loves it in fact, so the temptation will always be around.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 05, 2012, 11:46:36 AM
Worry not! If you do, it will mean more meat for The Asmo  :D

I plan to put "Asmo" stickers on all the meat I don't buy for myself.

QuoteWe generally do a "better" job of killing animals than hyenas, for example, do we not?

Considering what we do before killing them (in most cases), I'd say it's 6 of one and half dozen of the other.  In any case, that arguement doesn't make me feel better.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Asmodean on March 05, 2012, 04:40:36 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 05, 2012, 03:36:00 PM
I plan to put "Asmo" stickers on all the meat I don't buy for myself.
Having his "own" brand of meat would please the grayly grumpy one  :D
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Ali on March 06, 2012, 02:49:06 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 05, 2012, 10:55:01 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 04, 2012, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 04, 2012, 09:38:56 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 04, 2012, 07:07:44 PM
[As much as I love bacon, I'm trying to do this.
same goes. I really really love smoked bacon, but I am seriously considering giving up eating other mammals, and I'm uncomfortable with the way we kill them on an industrial scale.

And the horrifying conditions they live in before being killed.  I know there's a movement afoot for kinder raising of food animals but I'm finding lately that even that gives me a bad conscience.  If there were nothing else to eat it would be different but I have no real reason to eat meat.
same goes. It wouldn't be hard for me to give it up either, as I my girlfriend doesn't eat meat, so I never really get to buy any (apart from a few rashers of bacon now and again!)

My rule is that I don't eat anything with a face.  :D 

Pudding, I disagree about the living conditions argument.  I think I might actually eat meat if most meat animals were raised under better circumstances.  At least in the states, the living conditions have very little to do with what is humane, and everything to do with what maximizes output and profits.  Like, if you drive past a KFC, you can see deals like "Whole Chicken - $9.99."  But if you think about it, what that means is that the entire life of that chicken must have cost less than $9.99 to take care of it.  What kind of life could it have had?  It's just...stomach turning.  I don't mind the killing so much.  Everything dies, regardless of whether or not I eat it.  I can't bear the lousy living conditions on my behalf.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: The Magic Pudding on March 06, 2012, 03:31:14 AM
Quote from: Ali on March 06, 2012, 02:49:06 AM
My rule is that I don't eat anything with a face.  :D 

Pudding, I disagree about the living conditions argument.  I think I might actually eat meat if most meat animals were raised under better circumstances.  At least in the states, the living conditions have very little to do with what is humane, and everything to do with what maximizes output and profits.  Like, if you drive past a KFC, you can see deals like "Whole Chicken - $9.99."  But if you think about it, what that means is that the entire life of that chicken must have cost less than $9.99 to take care of it.  What kind of life could it have had?  It's just...stomach turning.  I don't mind the killing so much.  Everything dies, regardless of whether or not I eat it.  I can't bear the lousy living conditions on my behalf.

But that's $9.99 for a cooked chicken.
Whole chickens frequently sell for $4 a kilo, sometimes $3.  $4 per kg = $1.80lb
There'd still be a profit margin for those in the chain that supplies these things.
I find it odd that something easy to grow like a cucumber or zucchini, doesn't require refrigeration or preparation, yet they often cost more by weight than chicken.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Buddy on March 06, 2012, 12:58:23 PM
Quote from: Ali on March 06, 2012, 02:49:06 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 05, 2012, 10:55:01 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 04, 2012, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 04, 2012, 09:38:56 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 04, 2012, 07:07:44 PM
[As much as I love bacon, I'm trying to do this.
same goes. I really really love smoked bacon, but I am seriously considering giving up eating other mammals, and I'm uncomfortable with the way we kill them on an industrial scale.

And the horrifying conditions they live in before being killed.  I know there's a movement afoot for kinder raising of food animals but I'm finding lately that even that gives me a bad conscience.  If there were nothing else to eat it would be different but I have no real reason to eat meat.
same goes. It wouldn't be hard for me to give it up either, as I my girlfriend doesn't eat meat, so I never really get to buy any (apart from a few rashers of bacon now and again!)

My rule is that I don't eat anything with a face.  :D 

Pudding, I disagree about the living conditions argument.  I think I might actually eat meat if most meat animals were raised under better circumstances.  At least in the states, the living conditions have very little to do with what is humane, and everything to do with what maximizes output and profits.  Like, if you drive past a KFC, you can see deals like "Whole Chicken - $9.99."  But if you think about it, what that means is that the entire life of that chicken must have cost less than $9.99 to take care of it.  What kind of life could it have had?  It's just...stomach turning.  I don't mind the killing so much.  Everything dies, regardless of whether or not I eat it.  I can't bear the lousy living conditions on my behalf.

I actually just finished a six-week course on meat processing, and I was actually surprised to find out that chickens and other poultry actually like being in a large group. Apparently, it's comforting to them. We actually went to a cattle operation, and I kid you not, those cattle seemed healthier than most of the pets that I've seen.  :D
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Asmodean on March 06, 2012, 02:33:06 PM
Quote from: Budhorse4 on March 06, 2012, 12:58:23 PM
...I kid you not, those cattle seemed healthier than most of the pets that I've seen.  :D
People are willing to pay more for a "healthy" looking slab of beef.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Ali on March 06, 2012, 05:40:06 PM
Quote from: Budhorse4 on March 06, 2012, 12:58:23 PM
Quote from: Ali on March 06, 2012, 02:49:06 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 05, 2012, 10:55:01 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 04, 2012, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 04, 2012, 09:38:56 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 04, 2012, 07:07:44 PM
[As much as I love bacon, I'm trying to do this.
same goes. I really really love smoked bacon, but I am seriously considering giving up eating other mammals, and I'm uncomfortable with the way we kill them on an industrial scale.

And the horrifying conditions they live in before being killed.  I know there's a movement afoot for kinder raising of food animals but I'm finding lately that even that gives me a bad conscience.  If there were nothing else to eat it would be different but I have no real reason to eat meat.
same goes. It wouldn't be hard for me to give it up either, as I my girlfriend doesn't eat meat, so I never really get to buy any (apart from a few rashers of bacon now and again!)

My rule is that I don't eat anything with a face.  :D 

Pudding, I disagree about the living conditions argument.  I think I might actually eat meat if most meat animals were raised under better circumstances.  At least in the states, the living conditions have very little to do with what is humane, and everything to do with what maximizes output and profits.  Like, if you drive past a KFC, you can see deals like "Whole Chicken - $9.99."  But if you think about it, what that means is that the entire life of that chicken must have cost less than $9.99 to take care of it.  What kind of life could it have had?  It's just...stomach turning.  I don't mind the killing so much.  Everything dies, regardless of whether or not I eat it.  I can't bear the lousy living conditions on my behalf.

I actually just finished a six-week course on meat processing, and I was actually surprised to find out that chickens and other poultry actually like being in a large group. Apparently, it's comforting to them. We actually went to a cattle operation, and I kid you not, those cattle seemed healthier than most of the pets that I've seen.  :D

Not to get all PETA on you, but the Humane Society begs to disagree.  For example:  http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/confinement_farm/facts/battery_cages.html
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Buddy on March 06, 2012, 06:06:55 PM
Quote from: Ali on March 06, 2012, 05:40:06 PM

Not to get all PETA on you, but the Humane Society begs to disagree.  For example:  http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/confinement_farm/facts/battery_cages.html

I usually don't hold HSUS to a grain of salt. They and PETA are actually partnered.

Every cage that I have seen only housed one hen. And about the small cages; they keep them separated to prevent disease. Laying hen death rates have dropped from 27% down too 3%. With the cage system, the hens are raised off the ground so that they don't ever come in contact with waste. They have 24 hour access to food and water. Another reason they are kept last night is to make sure all the hens gets the same amount of food, water, and medical care. Cage systems are usually only used with the egg laying hens. The meat poultry birds are housed in large barns.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.photocalorie.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F10%2FChicken-factory-farm.jpg&hash=70eda1750969042071ce5064673fbd70fb1716e3)

The pipes are what bring in the food, which never comes in contact with the ground. When my animal science class visited a poultry farm we were required to put on full body plastic suits and shower both in and out. This was to prevent the birds from any contaminates that we had.

I really don't want to convert you from vegetarianism, I just hate it when people say something is cruel when the animal is just fine.  :)
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: DeterminedJuliet on March 06, 2012, 06:19:31 PM
I also have serious reservations about how mass-farmed animals live, but I don't believe a word that comes from PETA. Coming from a Province that has been at the brunt of some seriously misguided and mis-informed "animal rights" movements, I had a very strong distaste for them. Don't even get me started on the Sea Sheppard Society.

But I digress...
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: pytheas on March 10, 2012, 10:06:31 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 02, 2012, 09:30:23 PM
From a completely rational perspective, I don't think an "after-birth" abortion makes much sense. ..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. 

yet it was practised in ancient sparta, newborns deformed or ailing were cast down a mountain side keadas.
they had no screening option and yes they missed conditions which developed later in life.
An early form of eugenics, long before totalitarian brave new nazi worlds, I have seen it with mutant lab mice that eat their babies much more readily than the respective wild-type mice-for transgenetically diseased mice are clearly not fit and probably smell so to their freaked mums...

I dont know where i stand on the issue. Logically i would not want to support a problem to grow and pain , but i think i would have an issue to throw my newborn kid -if deformed- down the pit. i would be grateful for an optional service that did it on my and society's behalf

As for animal meat, i like it and see no problem in moderate cosumption, yet to address the ethic issue I would insist that meat should be consumed only after the perspective eater has killed and later on growed the animal themselves.

The mass farms exist also because the consumer likes to buy it in clean plastic wrap, do not forget

and hunting appears  as idiotic and destructive as safari when practised with firearms. we do not have the "luxury" really

in a yoga class i was amazed by a woman that advised my not to snap out of meditation and squash the occasional  mosquito, not on the cause of ruining the meditation in a zazen lightning, but because the mosquito has the right to exist and drink our blood.

next yoga class in a malaria-region beach
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: DeterminedJuliet on March 10, 2012, 03:43:20 PM
Quote from: pytheas on March 10, 2012, 10:06:31 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 02, 2012, 09:30:23 PM
From a completely rational perspective, I don't think an "after-birth" abortion makes much sense. ..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. 

yet it was practised in ancient sparta, newborns deformed or ailing were cast down a mountain side keadas.
they had no screening option and yes they missed conditions which developed later in life.

Well, yeah. Ancient Greeks obviously didn't have ultra-sounds, so I could almost see why that happened (especially when any deformed baby was probably considered a "curse from the gods" or whatever).

But that's not the situation today. We do have ultrasounds, amniocentesis, and genetic testing. So, if the parents care enough that they'd consider killing a newborn after going through the trouble of giving birth to it, they should have these procedures done. If they do, I would think that it would be very unlikely that they'd miss something that would be immediately apparent after birth.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Sweetdeath on March 12, 2012, 04:40:24 AM
It would seem a good idea to kill a fetus that will be born with horrible handicaps. Handicaps are expensive, and a parent becomes a prisoner, because all they do is care of that child. Even after death, that child is a burden to the Gov. and society. I hope this doesn't sound too harsh.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Asmodean on March 12, 2012, 07:25:39 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 12, 2012, 04:40:24 AM
It would seem a good idea to kill a fetus that will be born with horrible handicaps. Handicaps are expensive, and a parent becomes a prisoner, because all they do is care of that child. Even after death, that child is a burden to the Gov. and society. I hope this doesn't sound too harsh.
Not in my book. In fact, it's a bit too mild compared to my way of making the exact same point.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Sweetdeath on March 14, 2012, 03:25:59 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on March 12, 2012, 07:25:39 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 12, 2012, 04:40:24 AM
It would seem a good idea to kill a fetus that will be born with horrible handicaps. Handicaps are expensive, and a parent becomes a prisoner, because all they do is care of that child. Even after death, that child is a burden to the Gov. and society. I hope this doesn't sound too harsh.
Not in my book. In fact, it's a bit too mild compared to my way of making the exact same point.
Hm? What do you mean?  o_o
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Asmodean on March 14, 2012, 09:03:01 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 14, 2012, 03:25:59 AM
Hm? What do you mean?  o_o
That I would (and have) use a more harsh language when it comes to every gorked baby's right to live.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Guardian85 on March 14, 2012, 11:06:25 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 06, 2012, 06:19:31 PM
I also have serious reservations about how mass-farmed animals live, but I don't believe a word that comes from PETA. Coming from a Province that has been at the brunt of some seriously misguided and mis-informed "animal rights" movements, I had a very strong distaste for them. Don't even get me started on the Sea Sheppard Society.

But I digress...

Oh, I could say a few things about the Sea Shepard Society, but I would burn out the -bleep!- mashine.
I was approached in the street by one of them. She asked me if I liked whales.
I replied "Yes, they are delicious!" And I meant every word....
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Sweetdeath on March 14, 2012, 11:45:23 AM
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 14, 2012, 11:06:25 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 06, 2012, 06:19:31 PM
I also have serious reservations about how mass-farmed animals live, but I don't believe a word that comes from PETA. Coming from a Province that has been at the brunt of some seriously misguided and mis-informed "animal rights" movements, I had a very strong distaste for them. Don't even get me started on the Sea Sheppard Society.

But I digress...

Oh, I could say a few things about the Sea Shepard Society, but I would burn out the -bleep!- mashine.
I was approached in the street by one of them. She asked me if I liked whales.
I replied "Yes, they are delicious!" And I meant every word....
HAHAHA XD
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Guardian85 on March 14, 2012, 12:28:15 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 14, 2012, 11:45:23 AM
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 14, 2012, 11:06:25 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 06, 2012, 06:19:31 PM
I also have serious reservations about how mass-farmed animals live, but I don't believe a word that comes from PETA. Coming from a Province that has been at the brunt of some seriously misguided and mis-informed "animal rights" movements, I had a very strong distaste for them. Don't even get me started on the Sea Sheppard Society.

But I digress...

Oh, I could say a few things about the Sea Shepard Society, but I would burn out the -bleep!- mashine.
I was approached in the street by one of them. She asked me if I liked whales.
I replied "Yes, they are delicious!" And I meant every word....
HAHAHA XD

I'm serious. Whale steak with small potatoes and red wine sauce. Delicious!
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Too Few Lions on March 14, 2012, 01:21:29 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 14, 2012, 12:28:15 PM
I'm serious. Whale steak with small potatoes and red wine sauce. Delicious!
I've heard the same thing said about long pig!
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Guardian85 on March 14, 2012, 02:05:07 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 14, 2012, 01:21:29 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 14, 2012, 12:28:15 PM
I'm serious. Whale steak with small potatoes and red wine sauce. Delicious!
I've heard the same thing said about long pig!

Had to look that up. Probably true.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Ali on March 14, 2012, 06:07:06 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 12, 2012, 04:40:24 AM
It would seem a good idea to kill a fetus that will be born with horrible handicaps. Handicaps are expensive, and a parent becomes a prisoner, because all they do is care of that child. Even after death, that child is a burden to the Gov. and society. I hope this doesn't sound too harsh.

How is a dead kid still a burden to the Government and society?
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Sweetdeath on March 15, 2012, 12:28:20 AM
Quote from: Ali on March 14, 2012, 06:07:06 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 12, 2012, 04:40:24 AM
It would seem a good idea to kill a fetus that will be born with horrible handicaps. Handicaps are expensive, and a parent becomes a prisoner, because all they do is care of that child. Even after death, that child is a burden to the Gov. and society. I hope this doesn't sound too harsh.

How is a dead kid still a burden to the Government and society?
I meant after the parents die. I feel bad, but i see the mentally disabled or seriously handicaped have to be cared for by someone.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Sandra Craft on March 15, 2012, 02:40:33 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 14, 2012, 01:21:29 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 14, 2012, 12:28:15 PM
I'm serious. Whale steak with small potatoes and red wine sauce. Delicious!
I've heard the same thing said about long pig!

Weird fact:  an Amazonian tribe in a position to know such things claims "long pig" tastes the same as porpoise.  Maybe they've never had chicken.
Title: Re: After-birth abortion
Post by: Sweetdeath on March 15, 2012, 03:04:24 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 15, 2012, 02:40:33 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 14, 2012, 01:21:29 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 14, 2012, 12:28:15 PM
I'm serious. Whale steak with small potatoes and red wine sauce. Delicious!
I've heard the same thing said about long pig!

Weird fact:  an Amazonian tribe in a position to know such things claims "long pig" tastes the same as porpoise.  Maybe they've never had chicken.

Amusing!