• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?

Pozessed

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
934
Reaction score
217
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?

Yeah - you're the first person to come up with that stupid question in an abortion forum. You win a prize. :roll:
:popcorn:
 

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
25,803
Reaction score
20,577
Location
Austin, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?

Post birth means what? You mean like a fetus is born and it's instantly euthanized at the request of a parent? The second a fetus is born, it become subject to hold all of the rights and privileges held by all born persons - at least in the US.

Other than that...if your talking about killing born persons at any age - at will???? Then I would say that common sense, logic and reason mixed with the human conscience is what comes to mind for me...as reasons we don't kill stages of life after birth The born create social experiences with each other. That turns into family, friends, co-workers, student peers, etc, etc, etc networks of relationships.

The born have the responsibility of self-preservation via maintain social order. But this doesn't prevent individuals from infringing on other. Social order involves a variety of elements.

The yet to be born aren't capable of engaging in these experiences. To most of the world they don't exist until their born.

Also it's up to born persons to individually determine if they want to reproduce and how many times. Apparently way more do than don't. There's over 7 billion people who are the evidence that reproduction is alive and well. How many billions came before us?

There's probably a long list of reasons

And it's not rocket science that open season on born persons at will might cause some population problems after awhile. And no doubt that minority groups would band together to take out other groups...an so on. Seems like something close to happened during the civil war.

But this common sense thing reared its head in the Constitution, which you would consider it to be on the legal side.

The Constitution says that the state killing born people unjustly is a no-no. See the 5th. So if the state can't unjustly kill people why should you be allowed to?

But let's get down to the nitty gritty here. What you've posted is related a pro-life argument called "Age Discrimination". It's that simple. A lot of pro-life completely believe that the second a zygote comes into being - it is a full-born human beings with all rights and privileges. So age has no bearing on any stage of development - egg and sperm merge...and KABOO. And not only that, according to a number of pro-life, the zygote actually has more rights and privileges than the born.

So I think it would help if you expand on what you mean by "POST BORN"...
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Basically because the state determined that non-viable human life is worthless unless the mother says otherwise.
 

Hari Seldon

Stable Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2014
Messages
10,135
Reaction score
6,915
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?

Exactly. I think we should get a year to decide, maybe 2.
 

LaylaWindu

One with the Force
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
5,435
Reaction score
1,675
Location
PA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?

What on gods earth would be a post birth abortion?
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,652
Reaction score
21,952
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

From your citation:

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.

There is no such thing. This is merely an article published by pro-life supporters couched in terms to try to convince others of the immorality of abortions.

Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?

There is no such thing as a "post-birth" abortion.

Your thread is a clear attempt to try to equate the murder of a child with the abortion of a fetus.

Current laws allowing for abortion and the woman's right to choose are based on the line between when a fetus becomes a "person" for all intents and purposes, thereby deserving of protection under the law.

Once a child is born, the law is clear, they have the same protections as any other living person.

On the other hand, for a significant portion of it's early fetal development, this is NOT the case.

Trying to rehash the differences which have been argued and debated over and over already is disingenuous, because you already know the answer to your question.
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

No Shame!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
29,348
Reaction score
8,901
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Exactly. I think we should get a year to decide, maybe 2.

Make it four, until you've had a tantrum at the super market you can't really be sure of the decision

(Sarcasm folks)
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?

There is no such thing as post-birth abortion. Abortion can only happen before a woman gives birth. The very definition of abortion precludes any possibility of a "post birth abortion".

Good try on the anti-abortion talking point though.... well... not really, it failed miserably. :shrug:
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?


Please tell me what a post-birth abortion is? And who/how it is done?
 

PIPEWRENCH

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
12,848
Reaction score
4,185
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Please tell me what a post-birth abortion is? And who/how it is done?

The killing of a child.

And who/how it is done?

Hopefully it will continue to be illegal and those questions remain irrelevant. We should be evolving away from killing children after as well as before they are born.
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,079
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I love how no poster here yet has bought the bull**** the OP's selling.
 

Pozessed

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
934
Reaction score
217
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Post birth means what? You mean like a fetus is born and it's instantly euthanized at the request of a parent? The second a fetus is born, it become subject to hold all of the rights and privileges held by all born persons - at least in the US.

Other than that...if your talking about killing born persons at any age - at will???? Then I would say that common sense, logic and reason mixed with the human conscience is what comes to mind for me...as reasons we don't kill stages of life after birth The born create social experiences with each other. That turns into family, friends, co-workers, student peers, etc, etc, etc networks of relationships.

The born have the responsibility of self-preservation via maintain social order. But this doesn't prevent individuals from infringing on other. Social order involves a variety of elements.

The yet to be born aren't capable of engaging in these experiences. To most of the world they don't exist until their born.

Also it's up to born persons to individually determine if they want to reproduce and how many times. Apparently way more do than don't. There's over 7 billion people who are the evidence that reproduction is alive and well. How many billions came before us?

There's probably a long list of reasons

And it's not rocket science that open season on born persons at will might cause some population problems after awhile. And no doubt that minority groups would band together to take out other groups...an so on. Seems like something close to happened during the civil war.

But this common sense thing reared its head in the Constitution, which you would consider it to be on the legal side.

The Constitution says that the state killing born people unjustly is a no-no. See the 5th. So if the state can't unjustly kill people why should you be allowed to?

But let's get down to the nitty gritty here. What you've posted is related a pro-life argument called "Age Discrimination". It's that simple. A lot of pro-life completely believe that the second a zygote comes into being - it is a full-born human beings with all rights and privileges. So age has no bearing on any stage of development - egg and sperm merge...and KABOO. And not only that, according to a number of pro-life, the zygote actually has more rights and privileges than the born.

So I think it would help if you expand on what you mean by "POST BORN"...

Post-birth, post-born. It means exactly as it sounds. After-birth, after-born. I am meaning all ages. Why do we find it morally right to kill a "pre-conceived human" (non-person hood status) yet at some arbitrary point it becomes morally wrong because now they are a human?

You mention human conscience. That's exactly what this thread should be grappling with. Our conscience is contradicting itself by believing its moral to kill what can be considered a human at one point and not another. We have many moral contradictions regarding the systematic killing of humans.

I personally would never condone any of my partners to have had an abortion yet I don't condone a law prohibiting abortions. Most people fall in line with that ideology. I believe most people fall in line with that ideology because they would consider themselves to be murdering a human life.
Social morals and responsibilities are conflicting with personal morals and responsibilities. To me its an obvious inconsistency.

I didn't think about using the term age discrimination. Thank you. I will keep that in mind if I decide to post anything similar to this topic.
 

GEIxBattleRifle

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
3,306
Reaction score
1,024
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
"Post birth" abortions, "4th trimester" abortions etc translates to infanticide everyone. Sometimes it would be brought up by pro lifers in a debate to try to "close the gap" between unborn humans and infants with the current way our society is when it comes to "morals." Anthropocentrism seems to be better strong still especially in the USA.
 
Last edited:

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?
You seem to be implying that personhood is not a good reason to distinguish between entities that society thinks is OK to arbitrarily kill (like rats) and entities that society thinks is not OK to arbitrarily kill (like peaceful extraterrestrial aliens, or dolphins). Please elaborate on why you don't want personhood involved in the answer to your question. Are you not aware that the US Constitution uses the word "person" throughout, and doesn't use the word "human" even once? It is READY to allow dolphins and other non-humans to become US citizens, if they chose....

ONE answer to your question, as posed, relates to the point where the State has a vested interest in keeping future taxpayers alive. Also, keep in mind there are places where it is legal to abandon a newborn (not to mention "adoption") --why would someone feel a need to do a post-birth abortion when the problem can be dumped on someone else?
 
Last edited:

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
.... because now they are a human?
Personhood and human-ness are two entirely different and independent concepts. How is it you don't understand that extremely simple thing? Humans are human from the moment of conception, but that fact is totally unimportant. Only personhood matters --see the Constitution! (And see my signature, too.)
 
Last edited:

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?

Under my particular pro-choice ethos, which is based upon the right of any person to protect their body immediately from non-consensual use or harm, because a born child does not need to be killed in order for a woman to protect herself from use or harm.

With a ZEF, there is literally no other option but abortion to end the encroachment on her bodily integrity.

With a baby, she can put it up for adoption.

Pretty simple.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
83,153
Reaction score
62,459
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?

Actually I support abortion through the eighty-seventh trimester.
 

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
25,803
Reaction score
20,577
Location
Austin, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Post-birth, post-born. It means exactly as it sounds. After-birth, after-born. I am meaning all ages. Why do we find it morally right to kill a "pre-conceived human" (non-person hood status) yet at some arbitrary point it becomes morally wrong because now they are a human?

You mention human conscience. That's exactly what this thread should be grappling with. Our conscience is contradicting itself by believing its moral to kill what can be considered a human at one point and not another. We have many moral contradictions regarding the systematic killing of humans.

I personally would never condone any of my partners to have had an abortion yet I don't condone a law prohibiting abortions. Most people fall in line with that ideology. I believe most people fall in line with that ideology because they would consider themselves to be murdering a human life.
Social morals and responsibilities are conflicting with personal morals and responsibilities. To me its an obvious inconsistency.

I didn't think about using the term age discrimination. Thank you. I will keep that in mind if I decide to post anything similar to this topic.

Thanks, and I'm a few hops and skips away from the day I was born and I hope nobody knocks me off...;)

And yes, human beings have a history of killing other human human beings. In my opinion many who claim to be pro-life when they really are more closely akin to pro-fetus or pro-birth. The term "pro-life" becomes an oxymoron if person believes that the death sentence is acceptable or that abortion is okay in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the woman.

And maybe the term "pro-choice" should be coined something like "Pro-Prenatal choice", which is about the right of the individual woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy...not their born family members, friends, co-workers, etc, etc, etc.

Killing and murder don't necessarily carry the same meaning. Murder is a legal term. Sometimes killing is necessary...like say in wars, or self-defense. Or to stop a person from killing others. And there is the conscious choice of a society to kill as a means of punishment.

"Post-birth abortion" usually refers to justifiable euthanization of neonates. The justification is normally associated with the birth of a baby with severe birth defects.

HOWEVER...the world is a strange place where reality can be much more strange than fiction. There are people who believe that children under the age of 5 haven't yet reached "personhood" or that they shouldn't be classified as a "human being". I guess it takes all kinds, but I believe that those who believe 5 and under born kids aren't human beings isn't just pushing the moral envelop, they're burning it.
 

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
25,803
Reaction score
20,577
Location
Austin, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is no such thing as post-birth abortion. Abortion can only happen before a woman gives birth. The very definition of abortion precludes any possibility of a "post birth abortion".

Good try on the anti-abortion talking point though.... well... not really, it failed miserably. :shrug:


Actually "Post-birth abortion", while it sounds like an oxymoron, it usually refers to justifiable euthanization of neonates. The justification is associated with the birth of a baby with severe birth defects and they are put to their eternal sleep briefly after birth.

There's also a term called "After Birth Abortion", which gets wayyy out there. That's used by those who believe kids say five and down to neonates aren't yet classified as human beings. So they believe that the parent(s) should have the right to "euthanize" those kids at anytime within that time frame.

I personally choose to think of post-birth abortion as simply the euthanization of neonates who are severely deformed at birth.

As for the latter (after birth abortion)...I'm going with "murder".
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The killing of a child.



Hopefully it will continue to be illegal and those questions remain irrelevant. We should be evolving away from killing children after as well as before they are born.

Killing a child is called infanticide and murder............and as I understand has not a wit of anything to do with abortion..............
 

LaylaWindu

One with the Force
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
5,435
Reaction score
1,675
Location
PA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
The killing of child.

So you are just making up words and definitions now? Doesn't seem like anybody is buying it including pro-lifers.
 
Top Bottom