View Full Version : After Birth Abortion
PanzerJaeger
03-02-2012, 01:16
In an article (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full.pdf+html) in the Journal of Medical Ethics, a pair of medical ethicists have sought to resurrect the movement for after birth abortion. Essentially, the argument is a logical extension of the modern conception of government's role in health care and the social acceptance of abortion. Essentially, they argue that new born children are no more sentient than they were as fetuses in the womb, and thus are not entitled to life. They go beyond more traditional arguments for infanticide by suggesting that such after birth abortions should not be conditional on grave or terminal medical conditions. For example, if raising a child will be a severe burden for a family and require state assistance, even a perfectly healthy newborn should be eligible for the procedure. The ethicists have received hate mail and death threats for their proposal.
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.
They are right imho, call it a lumb of cells all you want. Good way to start a debate on what I see as deeply wrong
Sasaki Kojiro
03-02-2012, 01:49
For example, if raising a child will be a severe burden for a family and require state assistance, even a perfectly healthy newborn should be eligible for the procedure.
The cultures in history that have practiced infanticide did it because the kids would have starved to death (generally). Not because of this or:
Birthmothers are often reported to experience serious psychological problems due to the inability to elaborate their loss and
to cope with their grief. It is true that grief and sense of loss may accompany both abortion and after-birth abortion as well
as adoption, but we cannot assume that for the birthmother the latter is the least traumatic. For example, ‘those who grieve
a death must accept the irreversibility of the loss, but natural mothers often dream that their child will return to them. This
makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible’.
:rolleyes:
I don't know much about the grave or terminal medical conditions though.
In an article (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full.pdf+html) in the Journal of Medical Ethics, a pair of medical ethicists have sought to resurrect the movement for after birth abortion. Essentially, the argument is a logical extension of the modern conception of government's role in health care and the social acceptance of abortion. Essentially, they argue that new born children are no more sentient than they were as fetuses in the womb, and thus are not entitled to life. They go beyond more traditional arguments for infanticide by suggesting that such after birth abortions should not be conditional on grave or terminal medical conditions. For example, if raising a child will be a severe burden for a family and require state assistance, even a perfectly healthy newborn should be eligible for the procedure. The ethicists have received hate mail and death threats for their proposal.
Pure logic guided only by function and practicality. Enough to give a borg a boner, if it still had a wing-dang-doodle.
Rhyfelwyr
03-02-2012, 02:43
rofl at the term "after birth abortion". What are they being 'aborted' from, the face of the planet?
But hey at least these types aren't pretending anymore, we have it from the horses mouth that there's no real reason for a substantial change in a babies right to life upon exiting a vagina.
As I've always said infanticide is the natural conclusion of the arguments used to support abortion, and this is why the slippery slope argument is perfectly valid in an abortion debate.
ICantSpellDawg
03-02-2012, 05:50
This is the same thing I've been arguing for years. It's only a matter of time before 50% of board members are for this and 50% are against.
Strike For The South
03-02-2012, 06:47
Disgusting
Oh look, a couple of Australian philosophy professors published a controversial paper about killing babies. Let's click on their links and give them lots of attention! THIS ARE IMPORTANT!
ICantSpellDawg
03-02-2012, 06:58
So are alot of things. Where is your personhood argument now? Why is this so wrong, because you can see their faces?
a completely inoffensive name
03-02-2012, 07:01
So are alot of things. Where is your personhood argument now? Why is this so wrong, because you can see their faces?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e_dJHLsuPM
ICantSpellDawg
03-02-2012, 07:04
stuff
Why is it wrong to kill these children? What makes them different? Do you always resort to meme's when you have nothing to say but conventional moral rhetoric? What about the mother who can't afford to take care of them and believes that adoption would be cruel? They are not "persons" are they? How can you be so heartless?
a completely inoffensive name
03-02-2012, 07:08
Why is it wrong to kill these children? What makes them different? Do you always resort to meme's when you have nothing to say but conventional moral rhetoric? What about the mother who can't afford to take care of them and believes that adoption would be cruel? They are not "persons" are they? How can you be so heartless?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6qNtXk4VtQ
Strike For The South
03-02-2012, 07:09
So are alot of things. Where is your personhood argument now? Why is this so wrong, because you can see their faces?
If one can not understand the difference between the first trimester and out of the womb there will be no explaning this to you
ICantSpellDawg
03-02-2012, 07:10
more stuff
Excellent and thoughtful post. Mark it on your list of the posts that I approve of. Strongly.
Strike For The South
03-02-2012, 07:12
Excellent and thoughtful post. Mark it on your list of the posts that I approve of. Strongly.
Do you deal in absolutes b/c it keeps you warm at night
ICantSpellDawg
03-02-2012, 07:15
I get it. Graded laws based on graded levels of human life. We've decided what stages of human life can be protected, to what extent, and which ones should only have financial value to the mother in the event of someone else's legal liability. I'm sure that you can't tell me at what point the baby deserves equal protection, beyond "when it's head comes out of the Vagina". That is an arbitrary and old fashioned point in the development of human young, by modern standards.
ICantSpellDawg
03-02-2012, 07:17
Do you deal in absolutes b/c it keeps you warm at night
I deal in absolutes on this. The rest I'm open to what works. My initial response wasn't to your post.
This sounds dangerous at best. My sister and I would have actively lobbied for this on each other until we hit late high school/college, and started to actually get along like actual siblings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6qNtXk4VtQ
Owww, congratulation it's a sarcasm. But why not kill baby's what makes the difference. Or when, when does it becomes murder. Not that stupid a question for the omgwtflolrofl'ers among us. Abortion is just a feminist thingie, you must be the first male lesbian I guess
rory_20_uk
03-02-2012, 10:02
Simply:no.
Legal in the first trimester for whatever reason, increasing difficulty as one approaches the end of the second. In the third we are left with previously unseen fatal congenital conditions such as ancephaly
To use some nutters are arguing for post natal "abortion" adds weight to a slippery slope argument is equally as valid as saying that since everyone dies, there is no such thing as murder.
~:smoking:
Simply:no.
Legal in the first trimester for whatever reason, increasing difficulty as one approaches the end of the second. In the third we are left with previously unseen fatal congenital conditions such as ancephaly
To use some nutters are arguing for post natal "abortion" adds weight to a slippery slope argument is equally as valid as saying that since everyone dies, there is no such thing as murder.
~:smoking:
What is legal isn't necesarily the right thing to do, a lump of cells is still a person if you allow it to live, no matter how far it has developed. Abortion as a right that's not even to be questioned on the risk of teh facepalm of facepalmness just doesn't resonate very well with me, it are valid ethical considerations
So if a newborn isn't a person, then what is a person?
Also I find it interesting that they're basically using the same arguments used by pro-lifers, that abortion is the same thing as killing a newborn, and combining them with the arguments used by pro-abortionists to come to the conclusion that after birth "abortion" should be accepted by society.
gaelic cowboy
03-02-2012, 10:52
I have read arguements on this before from Peter Singer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer) about premature babies and how we should let them die.
The fact they have greatly increased chance of disability and neurological impairment was he argued really being imposed by us because of our own selfisness.
Reading the article it's pretty much the same idea for babies who are not premature but have increased potential for disability.
It's a difficult call too be honest I dont think I could argue against it if I knew the kid would suffer for the rest of there lives, I mean I would be choosing a life of disability for someone.
I have read arguements on this before from Peter Singer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer) about premature babies and how we should let them die.
The fact they have greatly increased chance of disability and neurological impairment was he argued really being imposed by us because of our own selfisness.
Reading the article it's pretty much the same idea for babies who are not premature but have increased potential for disability.
It's a difficult call too be honest I dont think I could argue against it if I knew the kid would suffer for the rest of there lives, I mean I would be choosing a life of disability for someone.
If you are asking the question you already answered it I think. Abortion should be a last resort, a very last resort when everything else has failed. Why is it seen as a women's right, we must be raised by quite unpleasant feminists who don't really want a job in the first place, they just claw your eyes if they can't have it
gaelic cowboy
03-02-2012, 11:15
If you are asking the question you already answered it I think. Abortion should be a last resort, a very last resort when everything else has failed.
Indeed
Were all fine with our hypocracy stating firm opinion until we need to choose a side, me I will be fine with hoping I never have to choose and leave it there.
Such thinking is how we really get through the day if were really honest.
I have read arguements on this before from Peter Singer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer) about premature babies and how we should let them die.
The fact they have greatly increased chance of disability and neurological impairment was he argued really being imposed by us because of our own selfisness.
Reading the article it's pretty much the same idea for babies who are not premature but have increased potential for disability.
It's a difficult call too be honest I dont think I could argue against it if I knew the kid would suffer for the rest of there lives, I mean I would be choosing a life of disability for someone.
I've met people who were born pre-maturely and they turned out just fine. When I was born I got stuck in my mother's birth canal and the umbilical cord was wrapped around my neck so I lost oxygen at birth. Then to top it all off when I was still a newborn I got meningitis. The odds were against me and despite all that I don't have any disabilities or impairments. IMO we shouldn't end someone's life when there's a chance that nothing will be wrong.
And even then, a life of disability doesn't mean a life of unhappiness. We all suffer to some extent, whether we have a disability or not.
gaelic cowboy
03-02-2012, 14:06
I've met people who were born pre-maturely and they turned out just fine. When I was born I got stuck in my mother's birth canal and the umbilical cord was wrapped around my neck so I lost oxygen at birth. Then to top it all off when I was still a newborn I got meningitis. The odds were against me and despite all that I don't have any disabilities or impairments. IMO we shouldn't end someone's life when there's a chance that nothing will be wrong.
And even then, a life of disability doesn't mean a life of unhappiness. We all suffer to some extent, whether we have a disability or not.
Each situation is differant the doctors will advise the parents of the risks and they make there choice.
The choice is there's to make because they and the baby will live with the consequences.
You miss the point people like Singer and the ones in the OP's link are making though, these babies have not fully developed cognitively as people yet. An adult disabled person has a personality and cognitive ability however impaired and naturally deserves life.
Babies on the other hand are basically hairless chimpanzees who develop there faculties later, it does not mean we love em any less but we might have to acknowledge it. (it's a terribly utilitarian view but then these are extreme situations)
Sometimes we really do have to ask if the choice to have a child was really as selfless a choice as we might like to pretend.
It's too easy to just dismiss these ideas as crackpot or fascist but the reality is we make choices like these everyday we just pretend there not the same.
Me as I said already I am quite fine with hypocracy and just pretending it wont happen to me I am Irish after all it's our nature.
am I the only one that reads this as an anti-abortion piece that is simply using a reductio ad absurdum stance in regards to liberalized abortion?
I mean the buttons it's design to push are pretty obvious.
Populus Romanus
03-02-2012, 15:38
As a teeneager I not fully developed cognitively either. So should someone have the right to after birth abort me? This goes far beyond just newborns.
gaelic cowboy
03-02-2012, 15:42
As a teeneager I not fully developed cognitively either. So should someone have the right to after birth abort me? This goes far beyond just newborns.
Absurd arguement as pointed out by Ronin already, you have a personality and a host of other things like a theory of mind that mark you out from an tiny infant.
now swiftly moving on
Vladimir
03-02-2012, 16:47
Interesting. I suppose this had to happen but I'm having a difficult time taking this at face value.
This is, of course, wrong but I wonder if there's something else they're getting at. Maybe it's just an academic exercise. Are their arguments well founded?
am I the only one that reads this as an anti-abortion piece that is simply using a reductio ad absurdum stance in regards to liberalized abortion?
I mean the buttons it's design to push are pretty obvious.
Now that you put it that way, I'm steadily moving in that direction as well, but still undecided.
Ironside
03-02-2012, 19:12
I get it. Graded laws based on graded levels of human life. We've decided what stages of human life can be protected, to what extent, and which ones should only have financial value to the mother in the event of someone else's legal liability. I'm sure that you can't tell me at what point the baby deserves equal protection, beyond "when it's head comes out of the Vagina". That is an arbitrary and old fashioned point in the development of human young, by modern standards.
You're asking sanity to join an American debate about abortion. I'm pretty sure that's an oxymoron. And I'm pretty much agreeing with Ronin.
Are there actually people in this thread advocating the legalization of killing full-term babies after they're born?
Is it International Troll Day? Am I asleep?
Apart from the name, "after-birth abortion", I agree with parts of the ethics; and did indeed write something similar in the previous abortion thread here in the Backroom.
Not sure if making this legal is the right the thing to do, but in itself, do not view it as a particularly wrong thing to do. The reaction to this paper, though, has been very predictable: based on emotions rather than rational consideration.
Vladimir
03-02-2012, 21:46
Apart from the name, "after-birth abortion", I agree with parts of the ethics; and did indeed write something similar in the previous abortion thread here in the Backroom.
Not sure if making this legal is the right the thing to do, but in itself, do not view it as a particularly wrong thing to do.
People in the eastern UK. This is your warning. This is how it starts. :end: :viking:
Sasaki Kojiro
03-02-2012, 21:57
Apart from the name, "after-birth abortion", I agree with parts of the ethics; and did indeed write something similar in the previous abortion thread here in the Backroom.
Not sure if making this legal is the right the thing to do, but in itself, do not view it as a particularly wrong thing to do. The reaction to this paper, though, has been very predictable: based on emotions rather than rational consideration.
The problem with this (and the problem with parts of the paper, a with a large part of moral philosophy as it is practiced) is the idea that morality is not based on emotion, that you can be rational without emotions...
PanzerJaeger
03-02-2012, 22:03
Are there actually people in this thread advocating the legalization of killing full-term babies after they're born?
Is it International Troll Day? Am I asleep?
Such legislation should be a fiscal priority. The social costs of supporting severely disabled children are extremely high and growing as new and advanced treatments are implemented. There is an entire infrastructure built up around the care and support of disabled children that represents enormous social wastage. Billions in state funds, research investments, medical equipment expenditures, and the efforts of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of health care specialists are squandered each year in order to keep children alive that will live short, unfortunate lives of little social contribution. It is a sort of socialized cruelty to subject these children to lives of misery and disability in the name of selfish and antiquated religious conceptions of the value of life, and it reflects a level of hubris our modern welfare states can no longer afford to tolerate.
Further, the (often unplanned) children of the very poor, even if healthy, are more often than not a drag on state resources throughout their lives. The deficit between their (usually single) parent's income and the cost of supporting them is made up by the state. In the US alone, billions upon billions of dollars are paid out in child tax credits just to keep the nation's poor children from starving in the streets. As they enter adulthood, these children as a whole become the least productive members of society. Without the familial resources to take advantage of the significant educational opportunities available in modern welfare states, they gravitate towards low skilled manufacturing and service jobs - jobs that are rapidly disappearing. They end up coalescing into ghettos that become giant drains on the resources provided by the more productive aspects of society.
This procedure should not only be legal, but mandated for such people. Child rearing should require a state license that is based on a thorough analysis of the parents' ability to properly support a healthy child. After birth abortion would be critical in enforcing the licensing process.
The problem with this (and the problem with parts of the paper, a with a large part of moral philosophy as it is practiced) is the idea that morality is not based on emotion, that you can be rational without emotions...
So, essentially you're saying that most people oppose killing newborns exclusively because it feels wrong? The truth is rather that they equate it with murder, something which has to be explained rationally.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-02-2012, 22:18
So, essentially you're saying that most people oppose killing newborns exclusively because it feels wrong?
I said you were making an artificial distinction between rational thought and emotional thought...you are making it again here, implying it has to be one or the other
@PJ, that's an argument for a change in the welfare laws and not an abortion mandate
I said you were making an artificial distinction between rational thought and emotional thought...you are making it again here, implying it has to be one or the other
That is because it does. Emotional thought is a knee-jerk response and does not seek to explain.
PanzerJaeger
03-02-2012, 22:40
@PJ, that's an argument for a change in the welfare laws and not an abortion mandate
Changing welfare laws would only subject children to even harsher conditions. The poor will have children whether they can afford them or not. We do not want to return to the days when abandoned children roamed the streets. Terminating such children before they become sentient beings is the most socially responsible and ethically sound option.
Kralizec
03-02-2012, 22:58
The premise of allowing abortion is that you can't expect women to carry a fetus to term if they don't want to; most states limit them to first trimester or similar in cases where there's no medical reason involved. This obviously doesn't apply to post-natal "abortions". Even if we were to accept that newborns are not entitled to personhood because they're not sentient yet it doesn't follow that they're the property of their mother and that they can be discarded at will.
As for some of the posts in this thread agreeing with the paper - I'll assume that my cognitive functions for sarcasm detection are failing me...
Sasaki Kojiro
03-02-2012, 23:22
That is because it does. Emotional thought is a knee-jerk response and does not seek to explain.
What do you think our moral philosophy would look like if we didn't experience sympathy? For example, we see someone in need of help, we have an emotional "knee-jerk" response, and then when we see someone else scorn them we have another. When we think about it, asking ourselves how we feel about these feelings of ours, we come up with a more philosophical explanation.
Changing welfare laws would only subject children to even harsher conditions. The poor will have children whether they can afford them or not. We do not want to return to the days when abandoned children roamed the streets. Terminating such children before they become sentient beings is the most socially responsible and ethically sound option.
Well, I didn't mean getting rid of welfare laws. But we can certainly pay up rather than mandating abortion.
Each situation is differant the doctors will advise the parents of the risks and they make there choice.
The choice is there's to make because they and the baby will live with the consequences.
You miss the point people like Singer and the ones in the OP's link are making though, these babies have not fully developed cognitively as people yet. An adult disabled person has a personality and cognitive ability however impaired and naturally deserves life.
Babies on the other hand are basically hairless chimpanzees who develop there faculties later, it does not mean we love em any less but we might have to acknowledge it. (it's a terribly utilitarian view but then these are extreme situations)
Sometimes we really do have to ask if the choice to have a child was really as selfless a choice as we might like to pretend.
It's too easy to just dismiss these ideas as crackpot or fascist but the reality is we make choices like these everyday we just pretend there not the same.
Me as I said already I am quite fine with hypocracy and just pretending it wont happen to me I am Irish after all it's our nature.
I get the point they're trying to make I just don't agree with what their definition of a person is. To me a human's cognitive function is irrelevant to whether or not it is a person.
And I'll say it again, a life of disability does not have to equal a life of unhappiness and suffering.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-02-2012, 23:43
Yes, I saw this article on Infanticide reported in the national papers.
firstly, lets be clear about a couple of questions: These are Oxford Dons conducting an ethical argument. I seriously doubt this is an "anti-Abortion piece, I suspect this is a purely ethical exercise.
Beyond that, as far as I can tell the authors are absolutely right, within their ethical framework. If it is morally acceptable to abort a Late-Term feotus, there is no ethical argument you can realistically mount about that feotus having rights once it passes out of the Birth Canal.
Ergo, either you accept Infanticide or your don't accept abortion carte-blanche and you make an effort to construct a more balanced and nuanced position.
As a premature, disabled, and extremely troubled birth-baby I have to say I have never wished I was aborted.
If you want to look at whether it's right to abort disabled feotuses I suggest you look at how many of the congenitally disabled are terminally suicidal.
What do you think our moral philosophy would look like if we didn't experience sympathy? For example, we see someone in need of help, we have an emotional "knee-jerk" response, and then when we see someone else scorn them we have another. When we think about it, asking ourselves how we feel about these feelings of ours, we come up with a more philosophical explanation.
Now you are changing the topic completely. I am not saying that you should deduce why it is wrong to murder; somewhere there must be a starting point. The question is how killing newborns relates to murder. You cannot say "it's a person, end of story". It has to be explained, otherwise I can just claim that my dog is a 'person', because "it really feels like he is one", and therefore I could get you hanged if you killed him.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-03-2012, 00:32
Now you are changing the topic completely. I am not saying that you should deduce why it is wrong to murder; somewhere there must be a starting point. The question is how killing newborns relates to murder. You cannot say "it's a person, end of story". It has to be explained, otherwise I can just claim that my dog is a 'person', because "it really feels like he is one", and therefore I could get you hanged if you killed him.
I see, I didn't realize you were talking about the "is it a person" question specifically. Though I can't say I'd accuse people who spend time with a newborn and say that it's a person are irrational.
edit: and you have to admit, the article basically just claims "it's not a person, end of story".
Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of
‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence
some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many nonhuman animals and mentally retarded human individuals are
persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons.
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered
subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is
permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.
Many or most people think that it is some time during pregnancy that abortion becomes wrong, but they skip right over that.
Or a person might be ‘harmed’ if something were done to her at the stage of fetus which affects for the worse
her quality of life as a person (eg, her mother took drugs during pregnancy), even if she is not aware of it. However, in such cases
we are talking about a person who is at least in the condition to value the different situation she would have found herself in if
she had not been harmed. And such a condition depends on the level of her mental development,
which in turn determines whether or not she is a ‘person’. Those who are only capable of experiencing pain and pleasure
(like perhaps fetuses and certainly newborns) have a right not to be inflicted pain. If, in addition to experiencing pain and pleasure, an individual is capable of making any aims (like actual
human and non-human persons), she is harmed if she is prevented from accomplishing her aims by being killed. Now,
hardly can a newborn be said to have aims, as the future we imagine for it is merely a projection of our minds on its potential
lives. It might start having expectations and develop a minimum level of self-awareness at a very early stage, but not in the first
days or few weeks after birth.
Seems like they just cite some 1972 article.
Montmorency
03-03-2012, 00:38
It has to be explained, otherwise I can just claim that my dog is a 'person', because "it really feels like he is one", and therefore I could get you hanged if you killed him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17116882
a completely inoffensive name
03-03-2012, 05:08
Owww, congratulation it's a sarcasm. But why not kill baby's what makes the difference. Or when, when does it becomes murder. Not that stupid a question for the omgwtflolrofl'ers among us. Abortion is just a feminist thingie, you must be the first male lesbian I guess
Why U Mad Tho?
But seriously. I am actually pro-life. I just recognize that the values/morals of western society are not quite there yet.
What I do dislike however are angry people like you who get angry at others who then get angry back at you.
We need to allow cheap (I would prefer free) birth control so that unwanted pregnancies are not created. Religion be damned. We also need to suck it up and provide a strong social net/structure for children that are given up for adoption. They fall through the cracks. More incentives to adopt them are needed. Allow gays to marry and form families.
I have said enough for both sides to completely hate me now.
am I the only one that reads this as an anti-abortion piece that is simply using a reductio ad absurdum stance in regards to liberalized abortion?
I mean the buttons it's design to push are pretty obvious.
You are so clever, of course it is
Why U Mad Tho?
But seriously. I am actually pro-life. I just recognize that the values/morals of western society are not quite there yet.
What I do dislike however are angry people like you who get angry at others who then get angry back at you.
We need to allow cheap (I would prefer free) birth control so that unwanted pregnancies are not created. Religion be damned. We also need to suck it up and provide a strong social net/structure for children that are given up for adoption. They fall through the cracks. More incentives to adopt them are needed. Allow gays to marry and form families.
I have said enough for both sides to completely hate me now.
I'm not angry, neither am I the one with the pavlov reaction, think of what you redicule. It isn't even to be mentioned that it might just be legal murder, joke is on you
Rhyfelwyr
03-04-2012, 03:12
We need to allow cheap (I would prefer free) birth control so that unwanted pregnancies are not created. Religion be damned. We also need to suck it up and provide a strong social net/structure for children that are given up for adoption. They fall through the cracks. More incentives to adopt them are needed. Allow gays to marry and form families.
Ah yes the old liberal wet dream. Free bith control, lots of sex education, strong social support for young mothers and homosexual adoption.
Because that totally worked in England*. /sarcasm
brb chav underclass
brb explosion of STD's
brb teenage pregnancy as a lifestyle
brb entrenched welfare dependency
And even with all that support, half of conceptions for under 18's still end in abortions. Because, well a baby would hold you back and you wouldn't get to fulfil your potential and go to college for 3 years to have free sex.
Pathetic, disgusting and inexplicable. Abortion debates leave me hoping that someone is going to wake me up and tell me this is all not real.
* I say England because not all of the above is true for all of the UK
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2012, 03:20
Ah yes the old liberal wet dream. Free bith control, lots of sex education, strong social support for young mothers and homosexual adoption.
Because that totally worked in England*. /sarcasm
brb chav underclass
brb explosion of STD's
brb teenage pregnancy as a lifestyle
brb entrenched welfare dependency
And even with all that support, half of conceptions for under 18's still end in abortions. Because, well a baby would hold you back and you wouldn't get to fulfil your potential and go to college for 3 years to have free sex.
Pathetic, disgusting and inexplicable. Abortion debates leave me hoping that someone is going to wake me up and tell me this is all not real.
* I say England because not all of the above is true for all of the UK
Well, there is a reason I said strong social support. Family unity and support is included in that. I mean, without good parenting to begin with you can't have a civilization....
I see, I didn't realize you were talking about the "is it a person" question specifically. Though I can't say I'd accuse people who spend time with a newborn and say that it's a person are irrational.
The definition of "person" is one way to approach the matter. You talk about peopling spending time with a newborn, but evidently this newborn is wanted. It's like saying "I hear you are a fan of the death penalty, yet you got a wife?"
What I want is rational discourse telling us why this is wrong. I think most people would agree that there is a big difference between killing a grown up person and tearing apart a zygote (the one-celled organism that is created from sperm and egg). If they were not, they would need to come up with a rational argument, because it is not at all obvious why this should be similar. Hence, there must also be later points where it is not so clear whether it is morally right or not to kill the organism. This further implies that there must a logical reason why killing a newborn is wrong, otherwise one says that it is wrong in itself (which would be interesting..). I've also established that there seems to be a clear link between murder and abortion on a moral level.
edit: and you have to admit, the article basically just claims "it's not a person, end of story".
Not going to say that I am a great fan of their paper (or the opposite, for that matter). As a matter of fact, I have only read excerpts from it. I am mainly interested in the morality concerning newborn/foetuses.
However, even if their reasoning should be faulty, that does not provide an excuse to get all emotional. In fact, I won't even bother to accuse the majority those that have sent death threats to the authors of actually having read the paper.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-04-2012, 18:22
The definition of "person" is one way to approach the matter. You talk about peopling spending time with a newborn, but evidently this newborn is wanted. It's like saying "I hear you are a fan of the death penalty, yet you got a wife?"
What I want is rational discourse telling us why this is wrong. I think most people would agree that there is a big difference between killing a grown up person and tearing apart a zygote (the one-celled organism that is created from sperm and egg). If they were not, they would need to come up with a rational argument, because it is not at all obvious why this should be similar. Hence, there must also be later points where it is not so clear whether it is morally right or not to kill the organism. This further implies that there must a logical reason why killing a newborn is wrong, otherwise one says that it is wrong in itself (which would be interesting..). I've also established that there seems to be a clear link between murder and abortion on a moral level.
There's a number of things that go into it. Once the baby has been born you are past the point where there is danger to the mother, so the argument that it is potentially a person has a lot more force. That's perfectly rational. The authors argue about a continuing concept of the self, but all they say is things like "it can hardly be said" etc. If you don't know whether something is murder or not, it's wrong to do it, even if you believe that it isn't. That's a very basic rational argument. I also think the " looks like a person" cut off for abortion has some merit, but that's a whole different moral argument (you should have strong reasons to override your conscience).
I think it's quite possible that newborns psychological capacity is as they say, but that would still only be an argument for infanticide being an option in the case of some serious medical conditions.
However, even if their reasoning should be faulty, that does not provide an excuse to get all emotional.
What's so bad about getting all emotional? This idea seems bizarre to me.
Once the baby has been born you are past the point where there is danger to the mother, so the argument that it is potentially a person has a lot more force.
How does the second part of the sentence follow the first?
That's perfectly rational. The authors argue about a continuing concept of the self, but all they say is things like "it can hardly be said" etc. If you don't know whether something is murder or not, it's wrong to do it, even if you believe that it isn't. That's a very basic rational argument.
You will never know something with 100% accuracy, you are going to have to make an estimate. If there was a previously unseen serious defect with the baby, the equation changes a lot, for example. Other things that can change the equation is relevant advances in science.
(you should have strong reasons to override your conscience)
Absolutely.
What's so bad about getting all emotional? This idea seems bizarre to me.
If it makes a person turn to name calling, death threats and hollow statements, it is a pretty bad thing for the debate.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-04-2012, 22:53
How does the second part of the sentence follow the first?
I don't understand what you mean...women die during childbirth and from complications during pregnancy...but there is no risk to them after the birth...don't you think that even if a newborn doesn't have a "continuous concept of the self" or whatever it is in the article, that the fact that it will is a strong reason to keep it alive?
You will never know something with 100% accuracy, you are going to have to make an estimate. If there was a previously unseen serious defect with the baby, the equation changes a lot, for example. Other things that can change the equation is relevant advances in science.
And if you have to make an estimate, surely you err on the side of caution? They didn't deal with the question in the article as far as I could see.
ICantSpellDawg
03-05-2012, 01:48
don't you think that even if a ________ doesn't have a "continuous concept of the self" or whatever it is in the article, that the fact that it will is a strong reason to keep it alive?
Obviously not
On this topic, a friend of mine had a son who was fine after birth, but around 8 months later something happened (I don't know the full story) and he is now autistic. Would you consider the "abortion" of this child fine?
Abortion after first trimester : NO!
Abortion right before Birth : HELL NO!!!
Abortion after Birth : In Soviet Russia, The newly born KILL YOU!!!
Vladimir
03-05-2012, 17:21
Abortion after first trimester : NO!
Abortion right before Birth : HELL NO!!!
Abortion after Birth : In Soviet Russia, The newly born KILL YOU!!!
You have no right to interfere with a woman's reproductive rights. It's her body and she can kill it if she wants to.
It makes a good example for the other children. They'll never complain about bedtime again. :skull:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-05-2012, 23:30
Abortion after first trimester : NO!
Abortion right before Birth : HELL NO!!!
Abortion after Birth : In Soviet Russia, The newly born KILL YOU!!!
Yup - also, there's such a thing as "morally wrong". This appears to be something Viking struggles with, and the authors of the paper too.
You have no right to interfere with a woman's reproductive rights. It's her body and she can kill it if she wants to.
It makes a good example for the other children. They'll never complain about bedtime again. :skull:
what I want to know is, what about my reproductive rights?
I went to all that trouble, the flowers, the poems, the long mind bendingly boring RomComs, I finally get to impregnate her and what happens?
She "aborts" my progeny via the local wise woman?
I ask you, how is a mighty warrior like myself supposed to create a lasting legacy, a line of noble kings stretching into the far future?
And yes, I canged scenarios half way through that rant.
HoreTore
03-06-2012, 00:45
Edit: Whoops! Commented before I saw that this thread had reached three pages.
I'm sure it's well into gunbortion-land by now. I won't know though, no way am I going to read through it... Abortion debates are fantastic in their own way; they go on and on and on, making people write thousands of words, and at the same time not bringing up a single new idea or perspective.
Honestly, it is quite spectacular in all its nonsense.
Anyway, the OP reminds me of the time a philosophy professor at the uni in Oslo proposed phsycal punishment(whippin') instead of jail, to start off a debate on a more humane treatment of prisoners.
My hunch tells me these guys are playing the same game...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-06-2012, 01:15
Edit: Whoops! Commented before I saw that this thread had reached three pages.
I'm sure it's well into gunbortion-land by now. I won't know though, no way am I going to read through it... Abortion debates are fantastic in their own way; they go on and on and on, making people write thousands of words, and at the same time not bringing up a single new idea or perspective.
Honestly, it is quite spectacular in all its nonsense.
Anyway, the OP reminds me of the time a philosophy professor at the uni in Oslo proposed phsycal punishment(whippin') instead of jail, to start off a debate on a more humane treatment of prisoners.
My hunch tells me these guys are playing the same game...
You do condescension so well, it must be deliberate.
I don't think this is actually a big academic troll, I think it's the natural evolution of the argument.
It's what happens when you adopt unprincipled positions, they are taken to logical extremes.
Kralizec
03-06-2012, 01:33
It's what happens when you adopt unprincipled positions, they are taken to logical extremes.
What is this supposed to mean? That being in favour of abortion at all is an unprincipled position?
a completely inoffensive name
03-06-2012, 01:50
What is this supposed to mean? That being in favour of abortion at all is an unprincipled position?If you view the act as infantcide no matter how far along the development is, then yes, it is completely and utterly an unprincipled position.
On this topic, a friend of mine had a son who was fine after birth, but around 8 months later something happened (I don't know the full story) and he is now autistic. Would you consider the "abortion" of this child fine?
I wouldn't. For one, I think a child's age is irrelevant to whether or not it's a person, like I said before. And, autistic people can still feel happiness, even though they have a lot of trouble expressing emotion. Not to mention autistic people can be extremely intelligent (but not always).
They can be difficult to deal with and it would be a challenge to raise someone with autism, to be sure, but I like to think society would be better off if people dealt with challenges and overcame them instead of just running away. Killing a child you don't want to raise is the cowards way out and shouldn't be acceptable.
CountArach
03-06-2012, 08:56
Yup - also, there's such a thing as "morally wrong". This appears to be something Viking struggles with, and the authors of the paper too.
Not if one believes in relative morals or an amoral world, which I would dare say most philosophers do.
a completely inoffensive name
03-06-2012, 09:14
Not if one believes in relative morals or an amoral world, which I would dare say most philosophers do.
Wasn't Socrates and his followers greatly outnumbered by the Sophists?
I don't understand what you mean...women die during childbirth and from complications during pregnancy...but there is no risk to them after the birth...don't you think that even if a newborn doesn't have a "continuous concept of the self" or whatever it is in the article, that the fact that it will is a strong reason to keep it alive?
No? Self-reliance does not alter the moral status of a creature.
And if you have to make an estimate, surely you err on the side of caution? They didn't deal with the question in the article as far as I could see.
That is true. I am sceptical of allowing infanticide (as I stated in my first post in this thread). I just think the fact it was considered in the article was interesting, and that I know where they come from. It is a refreshing perspective.
On this topic, a friend of mine had a son who was fine after birth, but around 8 months later something happened (I don't know the full story) and he is now autistic. Would you consider the "abortion" of this child fine?
Somewhere the line has to be drawn. You are already in dubious territory shortly after birth, and 8 months after much more so.
Yup - also, there's such a thing as "morally wrong". This appears to be something Viking struggles with, and the authors of the paper too.
What's morally wrong is what this very debate is all about.
I wouldn't. For one, I think a child's age is irrelevant to whether or not it's a person, like I said before. And, autistic people can still feel happiness, even though they have a lot of trouble expressing emotion. Not to mention autistic people can be extremely intelligent (but not always).
They can be difficult to deal with and it would be a challenge to raise someone with autism, to be sure, but I like to think society would be better off if people dealt with challenges and overcame them instead of just running away. Killing a child you don't want to raise is the cowards way out and shouldn't be acceptable.
I approve. I personally wouldn't, but I'm interested in hearing other people's opinion of that case. (For the record, he is alive and well, he's about 12 now.)
And, autistic people can still feel happiness, even though they have a lot of trouble expressing emotion. Not to mention autistic people can be extremely intelligent (but not always).
I know. But others may not see it that way.
Vladimir
03-06-2012, 13:57
what I want to know is, what about my reproductive rights?
I went to all that trouble, the flowers, the poems, the long mind bendingly boring RomComs, I finally get to impregnate her and what happens?
She "aborts" my progeny via the local wise woman?
I ask you, how is a mighty warrior like myself supposed to create a lasting legacy, a line of noble kings stretching into the far future?
And yes, I canged scenarios half way through that rant.
My thoughts exactly. :laugh4:
To me, the basic issues are still unresolved. A child is not a result of a single person's body forming a growth; and chances are the woman already made her choice when she consented in the first place. It's also the man's responsibility, by law, to care for the child. It's also his responsibility to provide for birth control.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-06-2012, 15:01
Not if one believes in relative morals or an amoral world, which I would dare say most philosophers do.
I think that most philosophers believe in moral absolutes - including the authors of this paper. Their contention is not that killing a person is not wrong, but that a newborn is not a person and therefore killing it is not wrong. I'll grant you, there is a strong utilitarian and relativistic schoold in modern philosophy (several, actually) but I doubt it spreads much beyond the atheistic sphere. Don't forget, all those priests, rabbis, holy men etc. are all philosophers.
Then, of course, you have to consider that we read the dead philosophers with as much, if not more, enthusiasm than the living ones.
As to "moral relativism", I have always considered it oxymoronic - if Moral Law dictates right from wrong and the correct way of living then a moral system that changes so willingly in the face of outside pressure is a way to claim moral authority without ever risking the Hemlock.
Wasn't Socrates and his followers greatly outnumbered by the Sophists?
Er.... was Socrates a Sophist? Maybe. We don't know, all we have are Plato's accounts and a few from Xenophon and others, given that Plato was in love with Socrates and Xenophon is considered a somewhat unreliable historian, we really don't know.
Still, Western Philosophy starts with Socrates because he trained Plato, which is his enduring legacy and gift to posterity.
No? Self-reliance does not alter the moral status of a creature.
That is true. I am sceptical of allowing infanticide (as I stated in my first post in this thread). I just think the fact it was considered in the article was interesting, and that I know where they come from. It is a refreshing perspective.
Somewhere the line has to be drawn. You are already in dubious territory shortly after birth, and 8 months after much more so.
What's morally wrong is what this very debate is all about.
It should be simple. Is killing a human being wrong? Is a baby a human being?
End of, so far as I'm concerned.
This really is not a difficult issue, except in the rare circumstances where the mother's life is in, greater than normal, danger, the child would not live after birth, or the mother has been raped.
Elective abortion, however, is not morally defensible.
My thoughts exactly. :laugh4:
To me, the basic issues are still unresolved. A child is not a result of a single person's body forming a growth; and chances are the woman already made her choice when she consented in the first place. It's also the man's responsibility, by law, to care for the child. It's also his responsibility to provide for birth control.
Quite, and in a more serious tone, the problem with the argument is this:
If the part of the feotus that is the woman is part of her "integral" body, or whatever, then the othe 50% is me, and an abortion, if it isn't homocide, is surely assault or even GBH against me.
gaelic cowboy
03-06-2012, 15:25
End of, so far as I'm concerned.
This really is not a difficult issue, except in the rare circumstances where the mother's life is in, greater than normal, danger, the child would not live after birth, or the mother has been raped.
That last one always crops up even with anti-abortionists and it has always puzzeled me, medical problems can have cases made for them both in and out of the womb.
Is the rape angle that many religious turn there blind eye from some kind of hangover from the bad seed idea?? surely this is a ridiculus idea today yes/no. To my mind it must be as the child is purely decreed abortable based on the fathers beastly actions and not on it's own health reasons.
I not accusing yourself of this now mind it just always seems to crop up and no one ever seems to take the contrary view even if there religiously minded.
CountArach
03-06-2012, 15:44
I think that most philosophers believe in moral absolutes - including the authors of this paper. Their contention is not that killing a person is not wrong, but that a newborn is not a person and therefore killing it is not wrong. I'll grant you, there is a strong utilitarian and relativistic schoold in modern philosophy (several, actually) but I doubt it spreads much beyond the atheistic sphere. Don't forget, all those priests, rabbis, holy men etc. are all philosophers.
Alright if you are going to broaden the term out that far, how about anyone who has ever thought about morality at any point, ever? Honestly, I clearly meant those whose job title is "Professor/Doctor of Philosophy" or those who have some sort of backing in ethics from their specific field (as with the two authors).
Anyway not worth arguing about, as it is well off topic. I see this whole thing as a somewhat interesting thought experiment and nothing more.
Is the rape angle that many religious turn there blind eye from some kind of hangover from the bad seed idea?? surely this is a ridiculus idea today yes/no. To my mind it must be as the child is purely decreed abortable based on the fathers beastly actions and not on it's own health reasons.
It is the lack of consent from the mother that is the issue here for most religious groups, I believe.
gaelic cowboy
03-06-2012, 16:03
It is the lack of consent from the mother that is the issue here for most religious groups, I believe.
Interesting
And yet it was Gods will obviously, surely they must oppose this abortion too??
Mothers lack of consent hardly comes into it in my view surely she can decide even if it's not from rape, the anti abortionists on the otherhand(generally religious but not exclusively so) seem to need consent only for this one senario.
A women could be on birth control which implies she does not consent to pregnacy yet if she did get pregnant the baby is deemed sacrosanct by the same groups.( I know it's not exactly the same)
Still to me it seems like there engaging in arguements more jesuitical than the jesuits themselves, who I assume oppose abortion and only grudgingly consent to medical reasons for it.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-06-2012, 16:03
That last one always crops up even with anti-abortionists and it has always puzzeled me, medical problems can have cases made for them both in and out of the womb.
Is the rape angle that many religious turn there blind eye from some kind of hangover from the bad seed idea?? surely this is a ridiculus idea today yes/no. To my mind it must be as the child is purely decreed abortable based on the fathers beastly actions and not on it's own health reasons.
I not accusing yourself of this now mind it just always seems to crop up and no one ever seems to take the contrary view even if there religiously minded.
It's not that aborting the result of a rape is morally "right" - it's a recognition that the level of trauma involved for the mother can be overwhleming, that she may commit suicide (or kill the baby once it's born) and that she has been placed in a situation not of her own choosing through violence. It's about compassion.
Sadly, I think the rest of the world sometimes assumes we aren't capable of that emotion.
Alright if you are going to broaden the term out that far, how about anyone who has ever thought about morality at any point, ever? Honestly, I clearly meant those whose job title is "Professor/Doctor of Philosophy" or those who have some sort of backing in ethics from their specific field (as with the two authors).
The theologies of various religions are all branches of philosophy, and many priests and bishops hold doctorates - not to mention that in Muslin countries many of the teachers will also be clerics. You may have "clearly meant" just the career philosophy lecturers in universities (I don't think it's obvious though,), but what should be obvious is that they are not the only professional group who "do" systematic philosophy as a part of their job.
You're on particularly shaky ground when talking about Ethicists, because Ethics is the one branch of philosophy that religious thinkers really go all out on.
I'm sorry, but I think your distinction is false.
gaelic cowboy
03-06-2012, 16:23
It's not that aborting the result of a rape is morally "right" - it's a recognition that the level of trauma involved for the mother can be overwhleming, that she may commit suicide (or kill the baby once it's born) and that she has been placed in a situation not of her own choosing through violence. It's about compassion.
But many women are in danger of killing themselves due to a whole host of reasons, depression, addiction etc etc violence in the home you get the idea, surely when abortions happen in these cases they cannot be opposed if the reasoning is simmilar. Too me the violence idea isnt even enough of a reason surely if your anti abortionist your merely perpetuating more violence on the child now.
Also we have all sorts of medical and mental supports today these are often needed when there is no rape involved, these senarios are not fine for the same groups but have the same dangers in the end.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-06-2012, 17:14
Interesting
And yet it was Gods will obviously, surely they must oppose this abortion too??
Mothers lack of consent hardly comes into it in my view surely she can decide even if it's not from rape, the anti abortionists on the otherhand(generally religious but not exclusively so) seem to need consent only for this one senario.
A women could be on birth control which implies she does not consent to pregnacy yet if she did get pregnant the baby is deemed sacrosanct by the same groups.( I know it's not exactly the same)
Still to me it seems like there engaging in arguements more jesuitical than the jesuits themselves, who I assume oppose abortion and only grudgingly consent to medical reasons for it.
Free Will means it doesn'r have to be God's Will.
But many women are in danger of killing themselves due to a whole host of reasons, depression, addiction etc etc violence in the home you get the idea, surely when abortions happen in these cases they cannot be opposed if the reasoning is simmilar. Too me the violence idea isnt even enough of a reason surely if your anti abortionist your merely perpetuating more violence on the child now.
Also we have all sorts of medical and mental supports today these are often needed when there is no rape involved, these senarios are not fine for the same groups but have the same dangers in the end.
That's not the same - this one took me a long time to get my head around, but a woman explained it to me thusly:
You have this thing growing inside you, and it's part of him and you're going to give birth to it.
This is where men, I think, struggle to empathise - the feotus is a constant reminder of the rape because it litterally embodies it. If you're struggling to come to terms with the fact you were raped having your own body going through a process which is emblemic of it is intollerable. It's like being constantly violated.
So, in that instance I would prefer we abort the feotus rather than have the mother kill it herself, or just kill herself.
gaelic cowboy
03-06-2012, 17:40
You have this thing growing inside you, and it's part of him and you're going to give birth to it.
Here is the nub of the problem why is it a thing only in this case and not a foetus that needs protecting like in the other cases. Our compassion to me looks false I can understand the womens need but not the anti groups wiggle room.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-06-2012, 18:04
Here is the nub of the problem why is it a thing only in this case and not a foetus that needs protecting like in the other cases. Our compassion to me looks false I can understand the womens need but not the anti groups wiggle room.
Exactly...
No? Self-reliance does not alter the moral status of a creature.
Q?
Not if one believes in relative morals or an amoral world, which I would dare say most philosophers do.
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
"Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?
Accept or lean toward: moral realism 525 / 931 (56.3%)
Accept or lean toward: moral anti-realism 258 / 931 (27.7%)
Other 148 / 931 (15.8%)
"
HoreTore
03-06-2012, 19:28
You do condescension so well, it must be deliberate.
I don't think this is actually a big academic troll, I think it's the natural evolution of the argument.
It's what happens when you adopt unprincipled positions, they are taken to logical extremes.
Who's trolling?
I find this sort of thing to be a highly creative way of starting a debate.
Is a baby a human being?
Hardly. Being a 'human being' should have an intellectual aspect to it.
Do you know why a zygote has no soul? Because a passing blood cell snatched it.
Q?
Becoming confined to wheelchair will not make a person lose a bit of his personhood.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-07-2012, 00:12
Hardly. Being a 'human being' should have an intellectual aspect to it.
Do you know why a zygote has no soul? Because a passing blood cell snatched it.
So you say a baby isn't a human being?
Kill as many as you like then.
DEBATE OVER.
Or possibly you are wrong?
What will you do then?
Here is the nub of the problem why is it a thing only in this case and not a foetus that needs protecting like in the other cases. Our compassion to me looks false I can understand the womens need but not the anti groups wiggle room.
No, it's still a human being - but you have no good options in this case. Your practical alternative is to put the woman on suicide watch fo nine months, force her to go through labour and spirit the newborn away before she can snap it's neck - and you still have to contend with the fact that by allowing the child to live you may well have inflicted a lasting mental injury on the mother. So, in this instance we allow abortion as the lesser evil.
That does not, however, mean I would council a rape victim to have an abortion - it just means I wouldn't stop her getting one.
I'm not happy about the situation, but the solution is to stop rapes.
Kill as many as you like then.
You think that there are a lot of parents out there dying to kill their newborns?
Note that just because something is not wrong in itself that does not mean that you will ever have an opportunity to actually carry it out without doing something that is wrong. I am at present not inclined to believe that infanticide should be legal.
Or possibly you are wrong?
What will you do then?
If I were wrong on an absolute scale, then this particular topic is likely to be the least of my worries. If I were wrong because I underestimated the mental capabilities of newborns - well, I do not see that coming. Good thing I have not supported legalising infanticide, either way; eh? ~;)
Sasaki Kojiro
03-07-2012, 00:45
No, it's still a human being - but you have no good options in this case. Your practical alternative is to put the woman on suicide watch fo nine months, force her to go through labour and spirit the newborn away before she can snap it's neck - and you still have to contend with the fact that by allowing the child to live you may well have inflicted a lasting mental injury on the mother. So, in this instance we allow abortion as the lesser evil.
That does not, however, mean I would council a rape victim to have an abortion - it just means I wouldn't stop her getting one.
I'm not happy about the situation, but the solution is to stop rapes.
So what about a scenario where she wasn't raped, but is still suicidal over the pregnancy...she's a teenager, her boyfriend dumped her, she had high career hopes...can abortion be the lesser evil?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-07-2012, 01:02
So what about a scenario where she wasn't raped, but is still suicidal over the pregnancy...she's a teenager, her boyfriend dumped her, she had high career hopes...can abortion be the lesser evil?
No, I don't think so. It is not the same situation, and it is of her own making. If she is suicidal in this case it is not because of the baby itself, but because of the changes her life will under go after the birth.
a completely inoffensive name
03-07-2012, 02:48
Er.... was Socrates a Sophist? Maybe. We don't know, all we have are Plato's accounts and a few from Xenophon and others, given that Plato was in love with Socrates and Xenophon is considered a somewhat unreliable historian, we really don't know.
Still, Western Philosophy starts with Socrates because he trained Plato, which is his enduring legacy and gift to posterity.
I thought the Sophists were the ancient version of relativists and Socrates thought differently, making them look like fools occasionally (according to Plato's accounts), which in turn lead to a joke trial caused by the Sophists turning Socrates into a martyr when he was found guilty.
gaelic cowboy
03-07-2012, 11:03
No, it's still a human being - but you have no good options in this case. Your practical alternative is to put the woman on suicide watch fo nine months, force her to go through labour and spirit the newborn away before she can snap it's neck - and you still have to contend with the fact that by allowing the child to live you may well have inflicted a lasting mental injury on the mother. So, in this instance we allow abortion as the lesser evil.
Women can be in danger from themselves for more reasons than rape as you well know apparently those instances dont merit a pro-choice arguement.
We have all sorts of medical and mental help these days why does only this instance require abortion?
I think the reality is that we as a society have conditioned ourselves to believe this baby is evil because it's was conceived in anger.
It doesnt surprise me that we have this mental block on this one thing though it's very violent and traumatic.
That does not, however, mean I would council a rape victim to have an abortion - it just means I wouldn't stop her getting one.
Neither would I
I'm not happy about the situation, but the solution is to stop rapes.
Indeed
Just for the record I am ok with a women having an abortion in this case but I would be ok with it because she chose it. I dont see a how aborting this time is different to anyother senario, this doesnt mean I like the idea of abortion but I am prepared to live with it.
Rhyfelwyr
03-07-2012, 14:19
It's a tough issue gaelic. Going by the logic used by the pro-life side, you are right - abortion in rape cases shouldn't really be acceptable.
I guess that rape, like abortion, generates a strong sense of revulsion and so people become logically inconsistent in their arguments because of that emotional impact.
Obviously a baby conceived by rape should not be viewed as less deserving to life than any other.
gaelic cowboy
03-07-2012, 14:53
It's a tough issue gaelic. Going by the logic used by the pro-life side, you are right - abortion in rape cases shouldn't really be acceptable.
I guess that rape, like abortion, generates a strong sense of revulsion and so people become logically inconsistent in their arguments because of that emotional impact.
Obviously a baby conceived by rape should not be viewed as less deserving to life than any other.
Indeed
As was stated already this is often viewed as a compassionate viewpoint and I am fine with that, I dont require the anti groups be logically consistent to the point of insanity any more than I would pro groups.(but I do think we should be honest with ourselves)
On the point of logical inconsistency I myself stated I would be open to after birth abortion in cases where the medical opinion had strong evidence to support such an idea, yet at the same time I do not support abortion in rape cases or at least I am uncomfortable with it. (I am aware this is seen as hypocritical)
However I do not require that people share my opinion and I am more than willing to let a person decide for themselves.
I suppose the reality is were all hypocrites to some extent who hope none of this ever happens to us.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-07-2012, 22:46
Women can be in danger from themselves for more reasons than rape as you well know apparently those instances dont merit a pro-choice arguement.
We have all sorts of medical and mental help these days why does only this instance require abortion?
I never said require though, did I. I said I would allow it, and I stated exactly why.
I think the reality is that we as a society have conditioned ourselves to believe this baby is evil because it's was conceived in anger.
It doesnt surprise me that we have this mental block on this one thing though it's very violent and traumatic.
I don't buy this either - it isn't true for me, certainly. I used to be dead set against rape abortion, but given the number of women I have met who expressed the opinion I scetched above, I became convinced of it being a legal necessity because they would get a backstreet one otherwise. In further mitigation, this is the only instance where the mother is a victim and the feotus the result of assault.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.