After-Birth Abortion

[Phoenix]

No joke. I could not even believe I was ****ing reading this as a serious article.

Link Here

.....“after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose: [W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk......

Is this the natural progression of current abortion?

Un ****ing believeable..

 

[lizzie]

Well frankly, that's not really hard to believe when people think that a human fetus isn't a person. I mean, come on. It's a person after birth, when it wasn't a person 1 minute prior? See the faulty logic in play here?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

No joke. I could not even believe I was ****ing reading this as a serious article.

Link Here


Is this the natural progression of current abortion?

Un ****ing believeable..

Such extremist views are a note of serious instability and don't remotely represent actual concerns of mothers who are considering it.

I don't even get worked up over it: I know that our country will never condone such things and if anyone ever did such things they'd end up in the clink where they belong.

 

[lizzie]

Such extremist views are a note of serious instability and don't remotely represent actual concerns of mothers who are considering it.

I don't even get worked up over it: I know that our country will never condone such things and if anyone ever did such things they'd end up in the clink where they belong.

I don't get worked up over it, but it's pretty sick thinking any way you look at it.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I don't get worked up over it, but it's pretty sick thinking any way you look at it.

yeah - twisted - call in the shrinks.

 

[Phoenix]

I know that our country will never condone such things

I certainly hope not!

 

[digsbe]

"After-birth abortion" is nothing but semantics. Once you are born it cannot be an abortion because you are not terminating a pregnancy. If pro-life individuals want to use this to equate abortion with infanticide then they are wrong. If pro-choice individuals want to equate infanticide with abortion then they are wrong too. The pregnancy ends at birth, and abortion is termination of a pregnancy.

 

[Your Star]

"After-birth abortion" is nothing but semantics. Once you are born it cannot be an abortion because you are not terminating a pregnancy. If pro-life individuals want to use this to equate abortion with infanticide then they are wrong. If pro-choice individuals want to equate infanticide with abortion then they are wrong too. The pregnancy ends at birth, and abortion is termination of a pregnancy.

Yeah this.

The people in the OP are retarded.

 

[X Factor]

I don't see how the ethicists in OP are suggesting anything that's any more or less reprehensible than that which already occurs here legally.

Stanek gained initial prominence in 1999 when she testified that, while she worked as a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, infants that survived induced labor abortions were abandoned to die in a utility room.[5] These allegations led to a formal investigation by the Illinois Department of Public Health, which stated that the hospital violated no state laws. Shortly thereafter, Advocate Health Care changed its policy on induced labor abortions, barring its use against fetuses with non-lethal developmental issues.[6]
A Christ Hospital spokesman admitted "that between 10 percent and 20 percent of fetuses with genetic defects that are aborted survive for short periods outside the womb."[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stanek

 

[Removable Mind]

Well frankly, that's not really hard to believe when people think that a human fetus isn't a person. I mean, come on. It's a person after birth, when it wasn't a person 1 minute prior? See the faulty logic in play here?

Lizzie, personally, I don't really care what a fetus is labeled. You can call'em Ray, or Jay, or Johnson. I honestly don't care.

The issue for me is that I totally oppose a fetus having legal rights of that of post-natal babies. As I've pointed out many times...my signature states my position in the matter.

Criminalize abortion. Groovy. BUT not without creating a much more effective social safety net for unwanted, abandoned, neglected kids who are born to women who only have them out of fear of prosecution. Failing to construct a much more complex system for unwanted kids...should be equally as criminal as abortion.

In fact, there should be very harsh consequences to both State Legislative Bodies and Federal Government for not implementing sound, effective means of dealing with children placed in the system. How do you do that? Send elected officials to jail for child endangerment and abuse if the don't enact adequate programs within a very defined time frame.

 

[X Factor]

"After-birth abortion" is nothing but semantics. Once you are born it cannot be an abortion because you are not terminating a pregnancy. If pro-life individuals want to use this to equate abortion with infanticide then they are wrong. If pro-choice individuals want to equate infanticide with abortion then they are wrong too. The pregnancy ends at birth, and abortion is termination of a pregnancy.

I would agree with you, Digs, if we all agreed that "abortion" was only about terminating or aborting a pregnancy, but, to many, abortion refers to aborting a life.

 

[Jerry]

No joke. I could not even believe I was ****ing reading this as a serious article.

Link Here


Is this the natural progression of current abortion?

Un ****ing believeable..

We often claimed that this was the logical consequence of pro-choice 'ethics', were accused of arguing a slippery-slope, but now look what we have here.

 

[Jerry]

Well frankly, that's not really hard to believe when people think that a human fetus isn't a person. I mean, come on. It's a person after birth, when it wasn't a person 1 minute prior? See the faulty logic in play here?

My #3 reason why the pro-choice 'brain activity' argument is invalid:

3. As demonstrated by Obama, it can not only have brain activity, but be born and surviving completely outside-of and detached-from the mother and still not be seen as a "person".

To quote the link:

In 2001, the Illinois Attorney General determined doctors were under “no ethical or legal obligation” to give life sustaining treatment to prematurely born infants who were intended to be aborted. The Illinois General Assembly then took up the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, modeled on a federal law of the same name.

 

[Removable Mind]

My #3 reason why the pro-choice 'brain activity' argument is invalid:


To quote the link:

Jerry, write your Congressional members, The Supreme Court Justices, the White House. You want to criminalize abortion...then post your personal address so that all of the unwanted, abused, neglected, and abandoned kids will have a place to live. There's two side of the equation, which you just can't seem to get.

Again, see my signature.

 

[X Factor]

Jerry, write your Congressional members, The Supreme Court Justices, the White House. You want to criminalize abortion...then post your personal address so that all of the unwanted, abused, neglected, and abandoned kids will have a place to live. There's two side of the equation, which you just can't seem to get.

Again, see my signature.

Personally, I'm tired of the argument that an unplanned pregnancy automically makes for an unloved and abused child. There are plenty that were "wanted" that are abused. What's your solution to that? After all, presumably the choice to have the baby is just as much a part of pro-choice as it is pro-life, isn't it?

 

[OKgrannie]

Personally, I'm tired of the argument that an unplanned pregnancy automically makes for an unloved and abused child. There are plenty that were "wanted" that are abused. What's your solution to that? After all, presumably the choice to have the baby is just as much a part of pro-choice as it is pro-life, isn't it?

There is a difference between "unplanned" and "unwanted." Many an "unplanned" pregnancy became a wanted one. But if the pregnancy is truly "unwanted", the parents aren't going to want to become parents just because they become pregnant.

 

[digsbe]

Personally, I'm tired of the argument that an unplanned pregnancy automically makes for an unloved and abused child. There are plenty that were "wanted" that are abused. What's your solution to that? After all, presumably the choice to have the baby is just as much a part of pro-choice as it is pro-life, isn't it?

I also think it's repugnant for someone to honestly believe and state that "well, your parents didn't want you so you won't be loved, it's best if we just have you killed. You know, killed for your own sake. It's the compassionate thing to do."

 

[OKgrannie]

I also think it's repugnant for someone to honestly believe and state that "well, your parents didn't want you so you won't be loved, it's best if we just have you killed. You know, killed for your own sake. It's the compassionate thing to do."

Who would be silly enough to say that to a zef?

 

[digsbe]

Who would be silly enough to say that to a zef?

Some are silly enough to believe themselves and argue that ending a human life on the grounds of "you will not be loved" is actually compassionate and morally upstanding.

 

[X Factor]

There is a difference between "unplanned" and "unwanted." Many an "unplanned" pregnancy became a wanted one. But if the pregnancy is truly "unwanted", the parents aren't going to want to become parents just because they become pregnant.

Ok, even assuming a child is "unwanted". Is that only what it takes to turn someone into a child abuser? Someone who likes to hurt kids has something wrong in their head and I doubt the character of their victim (wanted or unwanted) makes any difference. The same is true for rapists and molesters.

 

[X Factor]

I also think it's repugnant for someone to honestly believe and state that "well, your parents didn't want you so you won't be loved, it's best if we just have you killed. You know, killed for your own sake. It's the compassionate thing to do."

And isn't it interesting that, despite the fact we are often told that nobody is "pro-abortion", that particular argument is a very common one, and it's also very pro-abortion since it presumes that abortion is actually the better option than birth.

 

[OKgrannie]

Some are silly enough to believe themselves and argue that ending a human life on the grounds of "you will not be loved" is actually compassionate and morally upstanding.

I doubt those who believe that abortion can be compassionate and morally upstanding, which BTW, is over half the population, would be silly enough to talk to a zef.

 

[OKgrannie]

Ok, even assuming a child is "unwanted". Is that only what it takes to turn someone into a child abuser? Someone who likes to hurt kids has something wrong in their head and I doubt the character of their victim (wanted or unwanted) makes any difference. The same is true for rapists and molesters.

It may not be someone who "likes to hurt kids" who eventually does just that, but simply someone whose level of frustration has passed the tolerance point. Being forced to bear and care for an unwanted pregnancy/child would push someone a long way in that direction. Parenthood should be a choice, it should be a joyful choice.

 

[Peter King]

And isn't it interesting that, despite the fact we are often told that nobody is "pro-abortion", that particular argument is a very common one, and it's also very pro-abortion since it presumes that abortion is actually the better option than birth.

No, you are wrong. I do not presume that abortion is actually always the better option than birth. Sometimes it would be better to not choose abortion but that is not my choice, it is the woman's choice who is pregnant. My preference doesn't come into the decision making process for the woman in question. People can advise her, make financial options what enables a woman to choose to continue with her pregnancy (like paid pregnancy leave etc.) and just protect their position in the workplace (by making it illegal to replace her permanently/good affordable childcare) but in the end, it is the woman's choice whether or not she prefers an abortion or not.

That is the essence of pro-choice IMHO where as the opposing side just wants to push through what they want, they are the anti-choice/anti-freedom ones in this whole issue.

 

[Harshaw]

I doubt those who believe that abortion can be compassionate and morally upstanding, which BTW, is over half the population, would be silly enough to talk to a zef.

Over half the population thinks abortion can be "compassionate" and "morally upstanding"?

You will need to post some hard data for this. And no, polls showing more than half the population is "pro-choice" will not do this. You're claiming something else entirely.