"After-birth abortion"...

redrock

....

justam

redrock wrote:

hedonist wrote:

Thanks for that, redrock. I never thought of it - discussion itself, no matter the topic - in those terms.

A subject like this, it's difficult - almost impossible - to put emotions and ethics completely aside. Looking at it from the perspective you described definitely helps.

It is hedonist. 'Great minds' discussing the 'what ifs' of the world (whichever field they may be in), arguments being made in the harsh light of reality in order to try and make sense of them.

And yet, some topics don't even need to be argued and discussed at length. For example, would people waste time on a long discussion about killing old people once they reached a certain age? No, they wouldn't! Not because it couldn't be discussed academically....but because everyone knows that it would be emotionally wrong. No one discusses the benefit/disadvantages of killing groups of people instead of feeding the people...again, not because it couldn't be discussed academically but everyone feels deeply that it's wrong so why waste time discussing it?

This argument in this article and this post seems to be NOTHING but a match to light a fire under someone's agenda that abortion is wrong. They are trying to blur the edges between abortion and murder of an infant to try to get people to believe that early terminations are wrong.

Let's not forget to look at obvious MOTIVES for starting discussions. Nothing is brought up without a reason!

redrock

Justam - many of these topics have been discussed in such a way. Especially the killing/letting die/not feeding the starving (overpopulation discussion). Academia don't need reasons to discuss things as they do. For them, it's not a waste of time. It's research, it's 'what if', logical arguments, numbers, statistics.

justam

Yeah, I'm sure. I guess I just had an emotional reaction to this. I don't like it when people try to start arguments in sly ways. And it seemed to be the case here. For the reasons I've mentioned already...

The blurring of the term abortion, the covering of the agenda with a long boring argument, the placement of this long boring article in our little "moving train" portion of a PJ board. It just seemed designed to light a fire and I guess I'm in the right mood to mention it! So often I just ignore the nonsense I see but... killing full-term babies was just a bit too much for me this morning. *sigh*

redrock

This article has been taken out of academia context and provoked quite a fury in the 'news' as well, with people commenting on it to suit their agenda and adding their two cents worth. Reaction to it is normal. In context, it's 'fine'. Out of context it can be seen as quite vile.

justam

Yes.

pandora

redrock wrote:

pandora wrote:

redrock wrote:

Thank you Pandora. You do like mentioning I am heartless and cold.

did not say you I meant the author... :?

Hmmm.... yeah right. Anyway. I already said too much.

Hey I swear to God you know that means something to me
you everyone was speaking of the author as was I
but of course you try to make my opinion something it wasn't :?
why?

dan46er

Murder.

he still stands

redrock wrote:

The sentence you quote starts with: "..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,...."

What the authors are arguing is that, if one accepts certain criteria for abortion and they can demonstrate this criteria is valid for newborns, then they can reach a certain conclusion. Again, any moral issue is removed from these arguments. It's just logical discussion.

i don't know what the fuck a "moral status" is, but a newborn is a person and has completely equal rights to me or anyone else as soon as it is born, and killing it is murder. furthermore, it is not a "potential person" as the article states, it IS a person. it is a living, breathing thing existing in this world and is no different from me.

redrock wrote:

You are using the word 'murder' as moral judgement (or unlawful). That's were morals/ethics/emotions come in. Those things then will counter-act this academic discussion and come to very different conclusions. Of course for people like you and me, something like this is morally reprehensible but have there not been killing of newborns because of their sex, disability, etc. in some countries/cultures?

Just as Prof. Savulescu said: "The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn," he continued. "Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject."

You are the one making this a moral argument, I'm simply saying that it is murder because it is. LEGALLY. in this country if you kill a newborn, you will be tried and convicted of murder.

But I guess you're right that I'm also making a moral judgement, because to me murder is immoral.

Basically, this article is diving into some sort of stupid argument that is dissecting the GOLDEN RULE of humanity. I just don't see the reason to question these sort of things. It is a waste of time.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

the whole point of this discussion is to try get pro choicers to somehow "admit" that abortion is murder.

so I guess I didn't really have scrambled eggs for breakfast, I had scrambled chicken.

LikeAnOcean

If you're going to have an abortion, have it the second you realize you are pregnant.



Tough decision, but I can understand questioning before birth and after birth..


I think I came to a realization of who I was at about age 3... I'm not saying we should be killing two year olds, but if you are ok with a late term abortion, where would you draw the line?


It's something to really think about if as a society we are ok with abortion... Again, I'm not saying we should be murdering babies, but it you are going to have an abortion, make the decision right away. Every second you wait makes it more and more wrong... IMO.


If it's out of the womb, give it a chance with another parent.


I think the only reason I'm pro-choice is because there are too many damn people in this world.. If it were me, I don't think I could kill my unborn child.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

LikeAnOcean wrote:

If you're going to have an abortion, have it the second you realize you are pregnant.



Tough decision, but I can understand questioning before birth and after birth..


I think I came to a realization of who I was at about age 3... I'm not saying we should be killing two year olds, but if you are ok with a late term abortion, where would you draw the line?


It's something to really think about if as a society we are ok with abortion... Again, I'm not saying we should be murdering babies, but it you are going to have an abortion, make the decision right away. Every second you wait makes it more and more wrong... IMO.

where is it legal to get a late term abortion?

and just to be clear.........being pro choice is NOT the same as being ok with abortion.

LikeAnOcean

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

If you're going to have an abortion, have it the second you realize you are pregnant.



Tough decision, but I can understand questioning before birth and after birth..


I think I came to a realization of who I was at about age 3... I'm not saying we should be killing two year olds, but if you are ok with a late term abortion, where would you draw the line?


It's something to really think about if as a society we are ok with abortion... Again, I'm not saying we should be murdering babies, but it you are going to have an abortion, make the decision right away. Every second you wait makes it more and more wrong... IMO.

where is it legal to get a late term abortion?

and just to be clear.........being pro choice is NOT the same as being ok with abortion.

What is the cut off? Term?.. Mis info aside, I think my point was about drawing the line..


and I edited my post above before you responded about pro-choice/ok with abortion.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

LikeAnOcean wrote:

What is the cut off? Term?.. Mis info aside, I think my point was about drawing the line..


and I edited my post above before you responded about pro-choice/ok with abortion.

pretty sure the legal cut off is in the first trimester. not sure though.

inlet13

Abortion is wrong, period. In a sick way using extremes, the essay points that out. Why some are against killing a new born two seconds out of the womb vs. two seconds before it's out... is just plain odd.

That said, this discussion goes no where, especially here. The people who are pro-life won't change based on a essay like this, and those who are pro-choice won't either. It's an unfortunate reality. But, to avoid being the party-pooper, I'll add to it...

My hope is that one day it will be possible to remove an unwanted fetus (as soon as the mother would like), keep it alive out of utero in some way (that's where technology comes in), and offer it up for adoption. In my little world of hope, this would be the law. Abortion would cease to exist, but Mothers could end their pregnancy through the adoption/extraction method mentioned above. In that sense, those seeking termination of their pregnancy, would be offering up a gift to parents who can't have their own. To me, that's win/win. Those seeking a way out of parenting get it with a procedure as simple as an abortion (with this new technology), and those seeking children get one. Also, I think people would think twice about unprotected sex if their child is now being raised elsewhere by parents who actually wanted the child.

Obviously, this is way in the future... but, technology could make abortion a thing of the past. I do think that technology (via ultrasounds) is already changing the ease of mind with regards to abortions. Seeing the fetus being destroyed is not a pretty sight.

One day 99% of the public will look back on the practice of abortion itself as antiquated and repulsive. But, then again, that's my opinion.

LikeAnOcean

inlet13 wrote:

Abortion is wrong, period.

My hope is that one day it will be possible to remove an unwanted fetus (as soon as the mother would like), keep it alive out of utero in some way (that's where technology comes in), and offer it up for adoption.

8 billion people and growing, god, I hope not..

Really the solution is birth control.. Unless of course you consider it wrong and I am aborting every time I jack off..


Where is the line drawn?


We are all dieing.. Let's not pretend its ok to kill a grown man, but not an unborn child... IMO.

We are running out of space on this planet.. Tough decisions to make ahead... Either we make them or let nature make them for us.

PJ_Soul

Garbage article. No one is committing infanticide. Wtf.

They do it to baby girls in India and the Middle East and other parts of Asia though. Maybe the wack jobs who contributed to that article could re-focus their attention and talk about that rather that trying to sway opinions about women's right to choose by disseminating twisted and false information.

pandora

to late term abortion questions

Wikipedia speaks on late term abortion after viability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termi ... _pregnancy

my brother in law has saved micro premmies in this age range

he is a miracle worker most wonderful man

http://preemies.about.com/od/preemieage ... Week_2.htm

puremagic

To the original poster, you have missed the point of your own post by trying to turn it into an 'abortion' pro-life/pro-choice -WOMEN- seeking abortions issue, which it is not. This article is about the medical profession expanding their right to make decisions for you. If you had done some research you would fine that most hospitals already have Ethic Committees, in place that allow medical staff to conduct after birth 'mercy killings' under their 'medical futile care laws' as part of their Advance Directives. So if a child is born with a severe defect, or your son/daughter goes into a coma as a result of a sporting/car accident, or any type of condition requiring long-term life support, the Hospital can decide – without the consent of the parent/family– to pull the plug.

Remember the outcry about President Obama wanting to kill grandma, well your hospitals already had that authority by law to do such. President Obama was giving you the right and the ability to talk to your hospitals and doctors about their Advance Directive policies, which in most cases, you are given a written notice of the Hospital's decision and given 14 days to find alternative care before they make the decision for you.

NOW, insurance companies are lobbying to expand the medical futile laws and take it a step further by eliminating the cost of care before birth takes place. Reminder under President Obama's health care plan, people with a pre-disposed condition CAN NOT be denied health care/health insurance. Let me repeat that – People with a PRE-DISPOSED condition CAN NOT be denied health care/health insurance. President Obama's health care plan would negate any automatic denial to the right of life due to genetic testing or family medical history. Families, parents, parents-to-be would still be able to talk to their physicians about the quality of life issues as part of their Advance Directive rights.

Y'all get so wrapped up in the word 'abortion' that you miss the bigger picture,I guess its a pre-disposed condition.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

inlet13 wrote:

Abortion is wrong, period. In a sick way using extremes, the essay points that out. Why some are against killing a new born two seconds out of the womb vs. two seconds before it's out... is just plain odd.

I don't know any pro choicers who are for "killing a new born" two seconds before it's out. that is just an over dramatized false hood and you know it.