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:
opcorn:
Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?
Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?
Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?
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.
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.
Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?
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?
Please tell me what a post-birth abortion is? And who/how it is done?
And who/how it is done?
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"...
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....Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?
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.).... because now they are a human?
Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?
Aside from the legalities pertaining person hood, why do we condone pre-birth abortions and not post-birth abortions?
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.
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:
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.
The killing of child.