After Birth Abortion

[Sigurd]

Abortion after first trimester : NO!
Abortion right before Birth : HELL NO!!!
Abortion after Birth : In Soviet Russia, The newly born KILL YOU!!!

[Vladimir]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Tuuvi]

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]

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]

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?

[Viking]

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.

[Visor]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Viking]

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]

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.

[Viking]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.