In defense of Peter Singer and pospartum abortions... (1 Viewer)

[AtlantaAdonis]

I've been reading a lot of things Peter Singer has written on when life begins and a lot of it really makes sense.

“The liberal search for a morally crucial dividing line between the newborn baby and the fetus has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with a right to life from those who lack such a right."

Certainly accurate. Pro-choice people need to have the courage to stand up for the rights to terminate parenthood postpartum. We can't go on having a gaping logical inconsistency within the pro-choice movement for anti-choicers to attack. We need to be willing to fight for the rights of people with infants who feel they cannot go forward with raising offspring. We need to be unapologetic about it and tell people who object to it to mind their own business or be willing to adopt every unwanted infant if they don't like it. Ultimately, it's about not letting people impose their beliefs on other people. Think it's wrong to euthanize an unwanted infant? Then don't euthanize your infant. Live your life by your own religious morals but don't impose your beliefs on others.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

I've been reading a lot of things Peter Singer has written on when life begins and a lot of it really makes sense.



Certainly accurate. Pro-choice people need to have the courage to stand up for the rights to terminate parenthood postpartum. We can't go on having a gaping logical inconsistency within the pro-choice movement for anti-choicers to attack. We need to be willing to fight for the rights of people with infants who feel they cannot go forward with raising offspring. We need to be unapologetic about it and tell people who object to it to mind their own business or be willing to adopt every unwanted infant if they don't like it. Ultimately, it's about not letting people impose their beliefs on other people. Think it's wrong to euthanize an unwanted infant? Then don't euthanize your infant. Live your life by your own religious morals but don't impose your beliefs on others.

Are you for making infanticide legal in conclusion? Peter Singer is pretty much logically consistent with his pro choice position........like me. You won't get much objections from me if that's the case.

 

[Henrin]

This deal is getting worse all the time. I really don't think that most pro-choice people would support their logic going into the born state though.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I had to look him up to find out who he was.

In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences...Singer (also) argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Interesting position and I think I've seen something similar argued within this Forum subsection in reference to the brain-dead being maintained on life-support.

I am Pro-Choice, and agree that the problem is determining at what point a fetus achieves personhood. My understanding is that sometime after the 20th week a typical viable fetus has developed a central nervous system and a rudimentary brain. IMO it is around this point in development that we can begin to access "personhood," which he defines as: a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure...self-awareness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

However, a newborn baby can feel pain and pleasure and has a basic awareness of self and other. While it can be argued it is not self-aware as we tend to think (i.e. recognizes that others can actually see it and exist separately from it) it is clearly a "person" at this point worthy of nurturing and protecting.

 

[_Sal]

I had to look him up to find out who he was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Interesting position and I think I've seen something similar argued within this Forum subsection in reference to the brain-dead being maintained on life-support.

I am Pro-Choice, and agree that the problem is determining at what point a fetus achieves personhood. My understanding is that sometime after the 20th week a typical viable fetus has developed a central nervous system and a rudimentary brain. IMO it is around this point in development that we can begin to access "personhood," which he defines as: a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure...self-awareness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

However, a newborn baby can feel pain and pleasure and has a basic awareness of self and other. While it can be argued it is not self-aware as we tend to think (i.e. recognizes that others can actually see it and exist separately from it) it is clearly a "person" at this point worthy of nurturing and protecting.

yes I think this is logical, rational and I would support this stance

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I've been reading a lot of things Peter Singer has written on when life begins and a lot of it really makes sense.



Certainly accurate. Pro-choice people need to have the courage to stand up for the rights to terminate parenthood postpartum. We can't go on having a gaping logical inconsistency within the pro-choice movement for anti-choicers to attack. We need to be willing to fight for the rights of people with infants who feel they cannot go forward with raising offspring. We need to be unapologetic about it and tell people who object to it to mind their own business or be willing to adopt every unwanted infant if they don't like it. Ultimately, it's about not letting people impose their beliefs on other people. Think it's wrong to euthanize an unwanted infant? Then don't euthanize your infant. Live your life by your own religious morals but don't impose your beliefs on others.

I would say that at least Singer, and you, have the guts to say what is actually going on.

There truly is no clear dividing line after conception and it is euthanizing [killing/murdering] of another distinct and individual fellow human. A 'fetus' one second and the next a 'baby', one having rights and the other having none. One currently has to pass through this metaphorical Brandenburg Gate to have a claim to life, liberty and the freedoms that their fellow humans enjoy.

And if you can kill your children after they are birthed, hell, you can kill your children any time you want, right? The old, "I brought you into this world and I can take you out" logic comes into play. How sick and silly does this have to get before those on the left realize their horrible mistake?

 

[rocket88]

OP is a Poe. Has to be.

 

[JayDubya]

I find this point of view utterly abhorrent.

I also find it undeniably logically consistent with the arguments of pro-aborts and their denials of such invariably fail.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Parenthood can be terminated post-partum without killing the child. There's no argument from reproductive rights that makes infanticide necessary.

 

[AtlantaAdonis]

I had to look him up to find out who he was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Interesting position and I think I've seen something similar argued within this Forum subsection in reference to the brain-dead being maintained on life-support.

I am Pro-Choice, and agree that the problem is determining at what point a fetus achieves personhood. My understanding is that sometime after the 20th week a typical viable fetus has developed a central nervous system and a rudimentary brain. IMO it is around this point in development that we can begin to access "personhood," which he defines as: a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure...self-awareness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

However, a newborn baby can feel pain and pleasure and has a basic awareness of self and other. While it can be argued it is not self-aware as we tend to think (i.e. recognizes that others can actually see it and exist separately from it) it is clearly a "person" at this point worthy of nurturing and protecting.

Simple solution to that...makes sure the death is quick to ensure no suffering.

 

[Scrabaholic]

There is no such thing as a post partum abortion. Abortion is termination of pregnancy.

 

[Peter King]

This deal is getting worse all the time. I really don't think that most pro-choice people would support their logic going into the born state though.

I do not think there is a thing as a postpartum abortion, that is nonsense and that is how it should be. If you cannot deal with parenthood after birth there is just one option, giving the child up for adoption or let the other parent/or your parents raise it. Killing a child is unthinkable if the reason is that the child is unwanted. You would not do that to your animal and neither should you even fleetingly consider it for your child.

There is only one reason for euthanasia on infants and that is unbearable suffering through an incurable disease/deformity of which that infant is already dying.

And you can be as liberal and freethinking as you want, no baby or close to birth fetus should ever be aborted or killed due to it being unwanted. If you do not want to have a child you have several months to have an abortion, if you do not do it in time then it sucks to be you because that means carrying it to full term and putting it up for adoption.

 

[Lursa]

I've been reading a lot of things Peter Singer has written on when life begins and a lot of it really makes sense.



Certainly accurate. Pro-choice people need to have the courage to stand up for the rights to terminate parenthood postpartum. We can't go on having a gaping logical inconsistency within the pro-choice movement for anti-choicers to attack. We need to be willing to fight for the rights of people with infants who feel they cannot go forward with raising offspring. We need to be unapologetic about it and tell people who object to it to mind their own business or be willing to adopt every unwanted infant if they don't like it. Ultimately, it's about not letting people impose their beliefs on other people. Think it's wrong to euthanize an unwanted infant? Then don't euthanize your infant. Live your life by your own religious morals but don't impose your beliefs on others.

Why do parents have to kill their children to terminate parenthood? How ridiculously over-the-top....silly drama!

Parents have other, legal, options. The OP contains such a lame, desperate, dishonest (IMO) diatribe.