PDA

View Full Version : After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?



Chris
02-25-2014, 02:34 PM
Came across this argument and thought I'd throw it out there to see where people fall out on it, and the falling out should be different than the usual argument on this issue.

I am pro-life, I am against abortion except in cases of health or life of the mother, but I am against government intruding in any way whatsoever into what I consider a social issue. I realize that's difficult to fathom for those who think only in terms of how government should decide it for us.

But to the argument, which I'll only present in abstract and leave the rest for you to read at the link:


From J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full)


Abstract

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.

nathanbforrest45
02-25-2014, 03:20 PM
Post Partum Abortion. Its legal in Belgium under certain circumstances.

Chris
02-25-2014, 04:14 PM
And why not?

I truly expect a few pro-choicers to say whoa no I draw the line here at birth or at viability for these very important reasons. But nothing.

nathanbforrest45
02-25-2014, 04:21 PM
And why not?

I truly expect a few pro-choicers to say whoa no I draw the line here at birth or at viability for these very important reasons. But nothing.


I got the same response when I posted the Belgian thread. All I got there were those who thought it was ok to end the life if they were in extreme pain.

waltky
11-21-2016, 08:54 PM
Majority of Voters Support Ending Late-Term Abortion After 20 Weeks...
http://www.politicalforum.com/images/smilies/icon_cool.gif
Poll: Majority of Voters Support Ending Late-Term Abortion After 20 Weeks
November 21, 2016 – A poll released Friday by the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) shows that a majority of voters, 64%, support legislation such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that would prohibit abortions nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy.


The poll was commissioned by the SBA List and conducted by the polling company, inc./WomanTrend. Among the 64% of respondents who support the legislation, 43% said they “strongly support” the bill and 21% said they “somewhat support” the bill. Among the 28% who oppose the bill, 22% “strongly oppose” the legislation and 6% “somewhat oppose” it. Notably, women voters supported the bill in higher numbers than men with 65% of women supporting the late-term abortion limit compared to 63% of men.


http://cnsnews.com/s3/files/styles/content_100p/s3/0828_baby-624x417_0.jpg?itok=LLoVs327

Seventy-eight percent of millennial voters polled supported the abortion limit. The polling group interviewed 824 respondents on Election Day, surveying those who were registered to vote and had either already voted or planned to cast a ballot. The results mirror a Marist poll commissioned by the Knights of Columbus in July, which found that “about 8 in 10 Americans support substantial restrictions on abortion (78%), and would limit it to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy.”

President-elect Donald J. Trump promised in a September letter to pro-life voters that he was committed to “signing into law the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would end painful late-term abortions nationwide." “Pro-life voters who were key to victory on election night are eager to see a pro-life White House and Congress address the horrific reality of late-term abortion in America. We urge Congress to take up this legislation as soon as possible so that as many as 18,000 lives a year will be saved,” SBA List’s President Marjorie Dannenfelser said.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/poll-majority-voters-support-ending-late-term-abortion-after-20-weeks

See also:

Pope extends power to forgive abortion to all Roman Catholic priests
November 21, 2016 - Pope Francis on Monday extended indefinitely to all Roman Catholic priests the power to forgive abortion, a right previously reserved for bishops or special confessors in most parts of the world.


Francis, who has made a more inclusive and forgiving Roman Catholic Church a characteristic of his papacy, made the announcement in a document known as an "apostolic letter" after Sunday's close of the Church's "Holy Year of Mercy". He said he wanted to "restate as firmly as I can that abortion is a grave sin, since it puts an end to an innocent life" but "there is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with (God)". Francis had already temporarily granted the power to all priests to give what is known as "sacramental absolution" for abortion during the Holy Year, from Dec. 8 to Nov. 20, but the solemn tone of his words in Monday's letter suggested that the change would last for at least the rest of his papacy.

In Roman Catholic teaching, abortion is such a serious sin that those who procure or perform it bring automatic excommunication on themselves as they are knowingly committing a sin the Church considers grave. In the past, only a bishop or a designated special confessor could grant absolution for an abortion and lift excommunication. Although bishops in some dioceses in developed countries such as the United States and Britain had already delegated this authority to parish priests, the old practice was still in effect in most of the world. "Not only is this a change in Church policy, it changes Church law," said Father James Bretzke, a professor of moral theology at Boston College. "I think it’s very significant in the context of Pope Francis’ theme of his pontificate, which is going to go down as the pontificate of mercy; he sees mercy as absolutely the key."

At a news conference at the Vatican, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, who oversaw Holy Year activities, said the new norms applied to all Roman Catholics involved in an abortion, including the woman and medical staff. Fisichella rejected suggestions that some people could see the move as putting abortion on the same level as lesser sins. "There is no type of laxness here," he said, repeating the pope's words that while abortion was very grave, there was no sin that could not be touched by God's mercy. In a document last year, Francis described the "existential and moral ordeal" faced by women who have terminated pregnancies and said he had "met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pope-extends-power-forgive-abortion-priests-110457448.html?ref=gs

resister
11-21-2016, 08:58 PM
If it was not murder before birth,then how is this not out and out homicide?

exploited
11-21-2016, 08:59 PM
I think the logical limit to abortion is the vagina. After that it is kind of a different thing, isn't it?

Peter1469
11-21-2016, 08:59 PM
Would it be wrong to abort some of the members here? If yes, why?

exploited
11-21-2016, 09:02 PM
Would it be wrong to abort some of the members here? If yes, why?

I love it when you show your fascism.

del
11-21-2016, 09:03 PM
Would it be wrong to abort some of the members here? If yes, why?

it would be wrong to abort you.

the loss of comedic value in itself would be criminal

Crepitus
11-21-2016, 09:06 PM
Came across this argument and thought I'd throw it out there to see where people fall out on it, and the falling out should be different than the usual argument on this issue.

I am pro-life, I am against abortion except in cases of health or life of the mother, but I am against government intruding in any way whatsoever into what I consider a social issue. I realize that's difficult to fathom for those who think only in terms of how government should decide it for us.

But to the argument, which I'll only present in abstract and leave the rest for you to read at the link:


From J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full)

Ask the republicans. They're the ones who think they shouldn't be fed, clothed, or have medical care.

decedent
11-21-2016, 09:19 PM
I'm fine with abortion for the first two trimesters. Aborting during the third trimester seems a bit too much like infanticide to me. Apparently, mothers and doctors agree, since it's so uncommon.

exploited
11-21-2016, 09:22 PM
I'm fine with abortion for the first two trimesters. Aborting during the third trimester seems a bit too much like infanticide to me. Apparently, mothers and doctors agree, since it's so uncommon.

I don't support any limits to abortion. I believe it is more advantageous for our society to recognize a right to abort than it is to force women to carry it OR force them to seek "alternatives."

That said, abortion is largely immoral. It is done mostly for convenience rather than hardship. We need to do everything we can to create the conditions where abortion is not worth doing.

Peter1469
11-21-2016, 10:27 PM
I love it when you show your fascism.

I am for less government. If stupid people call that fascism I laugh. And move on.

I just have a hard time identifying with stupid.

decedent
11-21-2016, 10:51 PM
I don't support any limits to abortion. I believe it is more advantageous for our society to recognize a right to abort than it is to force women to carry it OR force them to seek "alternatives."

That said, abortion is largely immoral. It is done mostly for convenience rather than hardship. We need to do everything we can to create the conditions where abortion is not worth doing.
I consider the fetus a person after a certain point. To me, this happens in the third trimester, which is why I'm not a fan of third-trimester abortions. But I'm also not a fan of forcing a teen girl to have a child and starting a cycle of pain and poverty that could last generations.

Reproductive rights are becoming increasingly important as it becomes more difficult to raise a child. The Pope recently said abortion was okay, which met with surprisingly subdued reaction, so religion isn't really an excuse anymore.


Imagine that you see a baby being born. The second it pops out, it's a person and a citizen. It would be illegal to kill it because it now has legal rights. But just one minute prior, it had no legal rights, and wasn't considered a person in many contexts. To me, there's no difference in killing it.

On the other side of the coin, I'll never be convinced that the tiny thing with gills and a tail is a human that can feel any kind of pain. I'm very indifferent about it being aborted. Mother nature often aborts them at that point anyway.

exploited
11-21-2016, 10:55 PM
I consider the fetus a person after a certain point. To me, this happens in the third trimester, which is why I'm not a fan of third-trimester abortions. But I'm also not a fan of forcing a teen girl to have a child and starting a cycle of pain and poverty that could last generations.

Reproductive rights are becoming increasingly important as it becomes more difficult to raise a child. The Pope recently said abortion was okay, which met with surprisingly subdued reaction, so religion isn't really an excuse anymore.


Imagine that you see a baby being born. The second it pops out, it's a person and a citizen. It would be illegal to kill it because it now has legal rights. But just one minute prior, it had no legal rights, and wasn't considered a person in many contexts. To me, there's no difference in killing it.

On the other side of the coin, I'll never be convinced that the tiny thing with gills and a tail is a human that can feel any kind of pain. I'm very indifferent about it being aborted. Mother nature often aborts them at that point anyway.

The simple fact is that abortion kills a unique human being, regardless of how you try to rationalize it. A fetus is human life. It is a unique life. It has it's own set of DNA.

To say it is wrong to kill a fetus out of the womb can only be justified by the position that it is out of the womb.

That is because while a woman has the inherent right to kill anything growing inside of her, she does not have the right to kill anything growing outside of her.

It is a simple and defensible position.

decedent
11-21-2016, 11:13 PM
The simple fact is that abortion kills a unique human being, regardless of how you try to rationalize it. A fetus is human life. It is a unique life. It has it's own set of DNA.

To say it is wrong to kill a fetus out of the womb can only be justified by the position that it is out of the womb.

That is because while a woman has the inherent right to kill anything growing inside of her, she does not have the right to kill anything growing outside of her.

It is a simple and defensible position.
Human, yes. Person.... maybe.

One could argue that a person is a member of the moral community, and that membership includes the ability to communicate, reason, be self aware, and enlist in that community. This is a distinction among many philosophers between a human and a person, and that it may be more morally permissible to kill a non-person. Examples would be a grown human in a vegetative state or an embryo.

exploited
11-21-2016, 11:19 PM
Human, yes. Person.... maybe.

One could argue that a person is a member of the moral community, and that membership includes the ability to communicate, reason, be self aware, and enlist in that community. This is a distinction among many philosophers between a human and a person, and that it may be more morally permissible to kill a non-person. Examples would be a grown human in a vegetative state or an embryo.
I know a couple people who are not self-aware, nor intelligent enough to understand morality.

They ought to still have rights. Perhaps even more so.

The person v. human distinction is very, very weak. What is the difference? Should a mentally ill, physically disabled person who will never understand life or be able to think at a higher level than a fully-functional chimp have rights?

I think that all humans have rights because the last thing I want is a superior human being deciding I have none.

resister
11-21-2016, 11:22 PM
Human, yes. Person.... maybe.

One could argue that a person is a member of the moral community, and that membership includes the ability to communicate, reason, be self aware, and enlist in that community. This is a distinction among many philosophers between a human and a person, and that it may be more morally permissible to kill a non-person. Examples would be a grown human in a vegetative state or an embryo.
Your avatar persona said"I notice those who are for abortion, have allready been born"

AZ Jim
11-21-2016, 11:29 PM
It is not my decision. None of it. I needn't live with guilt either way. A child is born, broken. I don't mean ugly, I mean near vegetable state. Knowing the future for that child is horrible and the blackness of death less brutal, are we doing that child a favor by forcing it to live or not. I don't know. I do know it's not my child and it's not my decision. I loved my life and I obviously want the same for all children born but we know that is not reality. I am not religious and do not believe in prayer so I don't have the ability to put the question to "Jesus" in prayer thus removing me from the process, if it were my child I would have to make the decision and I am thankful that I won't have to go there in this lifetime.

Captain Obvious
11-21-2016, 11:51 PM
Life is cheap

resister
11-22-2016, 12:17 AM
Life is cheapIf it aint yours.Or you are a hunter

Cletus
11-22-2016, 03:30 AM
Human, yes. Person.... maybe.

One could argue that a person is a member of the moral community, and that membership includes the ability to communicate, reason, be self aware, and enlist in that community. This is a distinction among many philosophers between a human and a person, and that it may be more morally permissible to kill a non-person. Examples would be a grown human in a vegetative state or an embryo.

That would make it open season on Liberals.

patrickt
11-22-2016, 12:33 PM
When a woman kills a baby she's given birth to, what does she get in the U.S. besides a lot of sympathy?

decedent
11-22-2016, 07:00 PM
That would make it open season on Liberals.

Why do conservatives think that liberals, pregnant women, and doctors are just itching to terminate pregnancies? Like abortion doctors are sharpening their scalpels on a grindstone while laughing maniacally.

Not only are liberals not eager to "yank out babies", but we're doing our best to offer birth control and sex ed to young people in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Captain Obvious
11-22-2016, 08:28 PM
Why do conservatives think that liberals, pregnant women, and doctors are just itching to terminate pregnancies? Like abortion doctors are sharpening their scalpels on a grindstone while laughing maniacally.

Not only are liberals not eager to "yank out babies", but we're doing our best to offer birth control and sex ed to young people in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Because when valid arguments against the morality and dehumanization of abortion are brought up, typical leftist responses are "what about rape... what about incest..." like you all are looking for excuses to cut some kids up.

del
11-22-2016, 09:25 PM
Because when valid arguments against the morality and dehumanization of abortion are brought up, typical leftist responses are "what about rape... what about incest..." like you all are looking for excuses to cut some kids up.
mmm hmmm

Chris
11-22-2016, 09:37 PM
Life is cheap


"Life is just a bowl of pits."

https://i.snag.gy/3Hj945.jpg

Chris
11-22-2016, 09:39 PM
Because when valid arguments against the morality and dehumanization of abortion are brought up, typical leftist responses are "what about rape... what about incest..." like you all are looking for excuses to cut some kids up.


Liberal laws are based on outliers.

resister
11-22-2016, 09:40 PM
Because when valid arguments against the morality and dehumanization of abortion are brought up, typical leftist responses are "what about rape... what about incest..." like you all are looking for excuses to cut some kids up.Ronald Reagen said"I notice everyone who is 4 abortion, has already been born"

exploited
11-22-2016, 10:24 PM
Liberal laws are based on outliers.
All laws are based on outliers.

patrickt
11-23-2016, 08:09 AM
Why do conservatives think that liberals, pregnant women, and doctors are just itching to terminate pregnancies? Like abortion doctors are sharpening their scalpels on a grindstone while laughing maniacally.

Not only are liberals not eager to "yank out babies", but we're doing our best to offer birth control and sex ed to young people in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Gee, I don't know. Perhaps Planned Parenthood, sellers of body parts? Perhaps Dr. Kermit Gosnell, defended by leftists? Perhaps leftists "ethicists" saying that babies aren't persons and have no rights for three years or so?

And, leftists are so bizarre they see offering birth control to 12-year olds and encouraging sexual active adolescence as preventing pregnancies.
I can't imagine why people think leftists defend the guilty from death and condemn the truly innocent.

decedent
11-23-2016, 12:56 PM
Because when valid arguments against the morality and dehumanization of abortion are brought up, typical leftist responses are "what about rape... what about incest..." like you all are looking for excuses to cut some kids up.

Those are valid questions. 5% of rape victims get pregnant (source (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248)). These aren't excuses. These are practical questions to real-life problems.


I don't know of anyone who is eager to cut some kids up. Do you?

Captain Obvious
11-23-2016, 06:55 PM
Those are valid questions. 5% of rape victims get pregnant (source (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248)). These aren't excuses. These are practical questions to real-life problems.


I don't know of anyone who is eager to cut some kids up. Do you?

Yup, del

:biglaugh:

http://www.mjm-etudiants.com/wp-content/uploads/tumblr_mbshe404Gd1rionpko1_500.gif

patrickt
12-16-2016, 08:27 AM
I think the logical limit to abortion is the vagina. After that it is kind of a different thing, isn't it?

Then according to your faulty logic, a baby born by cesarean could be killed. Babies now are killed in the process of being born and that's considered fine by the liberals.

The logic is as flawed as that of those who say using a condom is killing. The fanatics at both ends of the spectrum are equally loony but those are the only people the media want to cater to.

patrickt
12-16-2016, 08:29 AM
Would it be wrong to abort some of the members here? If yes, why?

A woman told me one day that she didn't consider abortion to be killing. I agreed and said I didn't consider strangling Democrats to be killing. Of course, there is a big difference. The babies are innocents.

Amadeus
12-18-2016, 07:29 AM
I think the logical limit to abortion is the vagina. After that it is kind of a different thing, isn't it?
Yeah... this whole thread is kind of silly (if not offensive). The case for abortion centers around the autonomy and rights of the mother. The alternative to legal abortion is, essentially, slavery. If a 'society' (which for some reason does not include a government) decides that a woman cannot have an abortion, then women are are stripped of an essential liberty. They would not be equal citizens, and would be akin to chattel.

DGUtley
12-18-2016, 07:50 AM
When the time comes as it surely will, when we face that awesome moment, the final judgment, I’ve often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates, you are there alone standing before God and a terror will rip through your soul like nothing you can imagine. But I really think that those in the pro-life movement will not be alone. I think there will be a chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard beautifully and clearly in the next world and they will plead for everyone who has been in this movement. They will say to God, “Spare him because he loved us,” and God will look at you and say not, “Did you succeed?” but “Did you try?”-- Former U.S. Congressman Henry Hyde

Chris
12-18-2016, 10:02 AM
Yeah... this whole thread is kind of silly (if not offensive). The case for abortion centers around the autonomy and rights of the mother. The alternative to legal abortion is, essentially, slavery. If a 'society' (which for some reason does not include a government) decides that a woman cannot have an abortion, then women are are stripped of an essential liberty. They would not be equal citizens, and would be akin to chattel.


What about the equal rights of the unborn?

Amadeus
12-18-2016, 10:08 AM
What about the equal rights of the unborn?

Well, first we have to establish that woman are equal citizens with control over their bodies. Then we can worry about fetuses and zygotes, and then how those rights can be protected. If you can't establish the first, then your argument has no moral ground. If you can devalue one life (the mother), you cannot speak to the value of the unborn.

Chris
12-18-2016, 10:52 AM
Well, first we have to establish that woman are equal citizens with control over their bodies. Then we can worry about fetuses and zygotes, and then how those rights can be protected. If you can't establish the first, then your argument has no moral ground. If you can devalue one life (the mother), you cannot speak to the value of the unborn.

Not sure about Canada but the US was founded on the principle all men are created equal before the law.

From conception on it is a living human being, all arbitrary progressive personhood arguments aside.

Abortion doesn't take the life of the mother, generally, it takes the life of the unborn.

Amadeus
12-18-2016, 11:11 AM
From conception on it is a living human being

Then you are even opposed to the morning after pill, it would seem. Which is a pretty extreme anti-choice viewpoint.

My argument still stands. If women are slaves, and those who engage in abortion are murderers, just say so and then I can address your argument from that perspective. You can't leap frog this point to get to your point.

Hal Jordan
12-18-2016, 11:12 AM
Abortion is fine up until the age of 40.

Chris
12-18-2016, 11:23 AM
Then you are even opposed to the morning after pill, it would seem. Which is a pretty extreme anti-choice viewpoint.

My argument still stands. If women are slaves, and those who engage in abortion are murderers, just say so and then I can address your argument from that perspective. You can't leap frog this point to get to your point.


Yes, what you just made up about my point is extreme.

And now you try to make my argument into one about women as slaves. Not buying or biting.

Let me know when you have an argument based on the principle of equality. You as a liberal progressive certainly must abide by that principle. It is the basis of your arguing women aren't slaves.

Amadeus
12-18-2016, 11:29 AM
Yes, what you just made up about my point is extreme.

So you are for the morning after pill?

And now you try to make my argument into one about women as slaves. Not buying or biting.

If you force a woman to serve as a biological host for an unwanted pregnancy, what would you call it? If all life is equal, then abortion should be treated as murder. Would you not agree?

Let me know when you have an argument based on the principle of equality. You as a liberal progressive certainly must abide by that principle. It is the basis of your arguing women aren't slaves.
I think I'm being quite polite, and I asked what your position is without making any declarations. You are free to clarify what your argument is, and if you don't want to, our conversation will not continue.

Chris
12-18-2016, 11:38 AM
So you are for the morning after pill?


If you force a woman to serve as a biological host for an unwanted pregnancy, what would you call it? If all life is equal, then abortion should be treated as murder. Would you not agree?

I think I'm being quite polite, and I asked what your position is without making any declarations. You are free to clarify what your argument is, and if you don't want to, our conversation will not continue.


I declared my position and argued the basis of it. Let me know when you have an argument against that...one that doesn't contradict the egalitarian basis of yours.

Amadeus
12-18-2016, 11:40 AM
I declared my position and argued the basis of it. Let me know when you have an argument against that...one that doesn't contradict the egalitarian basis of yours.
No, you said you 'wouldn't bite' (read: not address the point you are leapfrogging). That is your prerogative. When you are ready to address A and B before you get to C, let me know.