Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

[Rodion Romanovich]

I support abortion until the 12th month. We have too much overpopulation and any way of preventing a new human from being born rather than killing him/her after he/she becomes a human being is great. Preferably the primitive overreproduction should be stopped before conception, but if people can't control their desires or can't afford condoms, abortions (or preferably free condoms for everyone) is necessary.

[Redleg]

I support abortion until the 12th month. .

That might work for horses and elephants, but not humans. Or do you advocate the killing of healthly new-born babies up until the time they turn three monthes old.

I must repeat myself for a second time it seems.

That is why I am disgusted with the shallow disregard for life expressed by some.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Not necessarily killing, but putting them out to the wolves. It isn't killing when they're below 3 months. But above all - it's more honorable to prevent conception than forcing a woman to have to carry a heavy baby, hurt her back, become fat, get uglier breasts, migraine for 9 months, not being available to have sex with (at least not as much), and hurt her lower body parts before ending the life. The worst of all, is if you above forcing the woman to do that also force the man and woman together to raise the child, learn to love it, teach it many things, form memories with it - and then see it killed by war or starvation.

Let's just say that we both agree that it's more honorable to abort before conception than later, and that we have some kind of idea that killing a child and an adolescent in many ways feels worse than say killing a 80 years old person, without really analyzing further why that thought exists (even if it has a quite interesting biological background). Like you, I'm strongly against abortion, but I wouldn't label it murder. Apart from the label I also assume that we have different ideas of how to implement reduced abortion rates in society in the most effective way. Given my knowledge of you from earlier threads, the main difference in our way of thinking lies in that you are more of a rule ethics type, while I apply a "continuous transformation of consequence ethics models into simple temporarily kept rule ethics sets". Since the entire rest of the discussion would be about our fundamental views on ethics but hidden in details of implementation, I might as well right away say that we will most likely only waste time if we try to debate abortion if we haven't first had a debate about our fundamental ways of ethical reasoning.

As for that debate, and the connection between thought and action, and rule ethics/political correctness contra consequence ethics, let me just take an example that "politically correct" behavior or rule ethics thinking, i.e. refusing to think in certain ways that would be declared tabboo by rule ethics rather than applying a consequence ethics way of reasoning, usually results in actions that cause more suffering, sins and other things that most rule ethics system claim to be trying to minimize:
An American study in economics compared the outcome of two types of political decisions: 1. where before the decision was made, it was assumed that a human life was worth a certain amount of money, 2. where no such assumption was made because it was considered unholy and evil. It turned out that on average, the decisions made by using the 1st method ended up carrying out actions that saved more lives, and if afterwards an estimation of value of human life was made for decisions of the 2nd type, it turned out that the second type of reasoning on average valued a human life half as high as the 1st type of decision-making.