Mothering Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Kill The Infants!

Tags
news
10K views 63 replies 18 participants last post by  branditopolis 
#1 ·
In this Journal of Medical Ethics, some people believe it is alright to kill infants in after-birth abortions.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full

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.

The rest of the article is just as shocking.
 
#27 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imakcerka View Post

This is getting touchy. And I doubt it will be allowed much longer.

I'm pro choice. Or so I was told. I use Birth control. I believe in the use of the morning after pill and I feel strongly that any woman who does not want to carry to term for any mirade of reasons should not have to. I don't think I would ever abort, but I can choose to if I feel it's necessary for me.

I have a strong fear of forcing people into having children through guilt and coersion. Should they have gotten pregnant? Eh, probably not. But it happens and then what? There are too many factors involved to nit pic over peoples rights and reasons. And there are far too many people weighing in on the uterus.

For those who believe it's morally wrong, I get it, I understand where you're coming from.

As far as the article is concerned. It's yucky to me. Very yucky.
I agree with much of this post. Ever read The Handmaid's Tale? Forced childbearing is my worst nightmare for myself and my female descendants.
 
#28 ·
Quote:
I have a strong fear of forcing people into having children through guilt and coersion.
I agree. But once someone is pregnant, she has a child, by definition; whether or not she should be permitted to kill that child is a different issue. Unless pro-lifers are actually impregnating women against their will, they aren't "forcing" them into having children. They are trying to prevent them killing the defenseless children they already have.
 
#29 ·
I understand why you think that. I really do. I don't fault you for believing that. Having and raising children is an enormous responsibility. Some people take it too lightly. As someone who was taught abstinence only I'm thankful for the friend I had who told me everything my mother didn't tell me. I didn't know things I should have known. I could have very well gotten pregnant had I not thought I would burn in hell forever if I had sex before marriage.

While we worry about what is going in utero... the children born, abused, assaulted, missing, lost and murdered by adults are mostly ignored. We keep saying have the baby. We then forget about them while they wander this crappy place treated like shyte by the very adults who should not have had them.. I think most of us already know that while they are a gift they are placed in some of the most horrific situations. I prefer to put my heart and mind into the children who are here and who have gone through hell and back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

I agree. But once someone is pregnant, she has a child, by definition; whether or not she should be permitted to kill that child is a different issue. Unless pro-lifers are actually impregnating women against their will, they aren't "forcing" them into having children. They are trying to prevent them killing the defenseless children they already have.
 
#30 ·
Quote:
While we worry about what is going in utero... the children born, abused, assaulted, missing, lost and murdered by adults are mostly ignored. We keep saying have the baby. We then forget about them while they wander this crappy place treated like shyte by the very adults who should not have had them..
Do "we"? I don't know any pro-lifers (and I know a lot - Christian circles) who ignore the fact that children who are born experience hardship and suffering.

There are certainly pro-lifers who focus on the pro-life cause to the exclusion of other charities, and I don't see that that's necessarily a bad thing - if you donate or do activism work to end slavery in Asia, that doesn't mean you're OK with slavery in India, it just means you have a specific passion and/or only so much time, money or mental energy. Some pro-lifers probably think that soon-to-be-aborted children are in direr straits, needing more urgent help, than kids who are at least alive and capable of semi-independent existence. There's a certain logic to that.

But most pro-lifers I know get just as het up about the suffering of already-born children, and many pro-lifers - Protestants, Catholics, people with no religion, all sorts - have fostered and adopted special needs children, set up charities to get food, clothing and Christmas presents to needy kids, campaigned for tougher penalties for child abusers, put up flyers for missing children, let neighbor kids come over to play to avoid their drunken parents, called the police on domestic violence....

I don't think it has to be an either/or, and honestly I don't think it usually is. Approximately 50% of people in the USA are pro-life (I think I read 47% as a recent figure) - I highly doubt all the child-related charities are comprised of the other 53% because the pro-lifers only care about fetuses.
 
#31 ·
You're not going to get an argument out of me. I'm sorry. I see that you're very passionate about your beliefs. That's absolutely awesome. The "We" is everyone included. So much concern about what is happening in the uterus on both sides. If they put that much effort into what is happening outside of the Uterus it would be amazing. And no I do not think they do enough. I don't care how many numbers there are to say they are trying. They still suck at it.

Some pro-lifers probably think that soon-to-be-aborted children are in direr straits, needing more urgent help, than kids who are at least alive and capable of semi-independent existence. There's a certain logic to that.

I don't understand this logic at all. As you said it's some I doubt it's all.
 
#32 ·
Quote:
I don't understand this logic at all.
...Because once you're dead, you're dead? Even a starved, abused, miserable child has a chance, however slight, of his/her situation changing for the better - someone might notice, a school program might provide food, the abusive parent might get arrested, the kid might make a friend, discover a talent, find a compassionate neighbor. Someone who's about to be killed is about to have all his/her options rather abruptly and finally taken away. It's like walking down the street in Ethiopia and seeing starving children begging by the street - if you're about to stop and pull out a coin, but see another kid about to be run over by a bus, you don't stand there thinking "Well, these kids all have it pretty bad, slow starvation is really a lot worse than a quick death" - you save the kid from the bus. (OK, not my most elegant analogy ever - I haven't had much sleep for a week.)

Again, among the pro-lifers I know, most are equally passionate about children in danger inside the womb and out. I'm just pointing out that it's not necessarily hypocritical for some pro-lifers to be more actively involved in helping the unborn than the born; any more than the reverse. (I have a sister who's pro-life, but as far as I know she doesn't participate in any kind of pro-life activism; but she does do a lot of work with the homeless. It would certainly be odd to say "You only care about people once they're born, you hypocrite!" to her, so I don't see why the reverse isn't true.)
 
#33 ·
We are running pretty far afield here, and have entered into the debating abortion territory. While this rule may seem arbitrary to you, the fact is that we have tried (more times than I can count) to host this discussion and truthfully, no one's mind gets changed, and it devolves into an argument. So, let's at least head back into the topic posited by the OP and out of the "it's okay/it's wrong" territory.
 
#35 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

Again, among the pro-lifers I know, most are equally passionate about children in danger inside the womb and out. I'm just pointing out that it's not necessarily hypocritical for some pro-lifers to be more actively involved in helping the unborn than the born; any more than the reverse. (I have a sister who's pro-life, but as far as I know she doesn't participate in any kind of pro-life activism; but she does do a lot of work with the homeless. It would certainly be odd to say "You only care about people once they're born, you hypocrite!" to her, so I don't see why the reverse isn't true.)
Clearly you and I know a VERY different set of pro-lifers. The ones I know are filthy effing rich, and would just seek treatment elsewhere. They don't give a rats ass about poor children (clearly poor children have lazy parents, who just need to get a job), and they don't want to adopt, and they don't want to foster, and they don't want to pay taxes so that everyone can have healthcare.

The problem with illegalizing abortion is the "slippery slope". Once late term abortion is made illegal, people push for early term abortion to be made illegal, and then there are exceptions for the life and health of the mother, and cases involving rape or incest. Then politicians want to take those exceptions away too.

As you probably know, miscarriage is more common than live birth (without taking abortion into consideration). Alabama has amended criminal statutes so that women can be held criminally responsible for the outcome of their pregnancy. How on EARTH does that further ANY public policy? If people are "pro-life" they should be donating to study the causes of miscarriage and to stop miscarriage - so that women who desperately want children can have them without suffering loss.

As for the article, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the movement. When someone "needs" an abortion their circumstances are somehow different from anyone elses, and they, as "pro-lifers" are more entitled - to privacy, to special treatment, etc. It also proves that those who have the means will still seek abortions. Rich people will go to foreign countries for medical tourism to get the services they "need".

People without the means to seek safe abortions in a foreign country, will seek back alley illegal procedures that put the mothers life in danger. Most women who seek an abortion already have children. Should those children grow up without a mother because of someone's moral objection to abortion? Sure, they think of abortion as murder, but murder is illegal and people still do it, and abortion is legal because if it wasn't women would be dying from illegal abortions that aren't safe (which is one of the reasons it was legalized in the first place).

My main and biggest problem with the pro-life movement is the hypocrisy. Rick Santorum (
puke.gif
) is running for president and doesn't believe that abortion should be legal ever under any circumstances (even to save the life of the mother, one who may already have children that need her). And yet, when his wife was dying because of an infection from a living fetus, he chose abortion. His choice was "moral" because he couldn't live without his wife. But other men and children are supposed to live without their wives, mothers, daughters, sisters because he doesn't think they should have the right to an abortion when the pregnancy is killing the mother? According to your views he murdered his baby!!!! MURDER!!! OMG HE COMMIT MURDER. But he's running for president on a pro-life platform. Preaching that which he does not practice.

I am pro-choice not because I believe that abortion is "moral", not because I think it is "right" - but because abortion is a medical decision that is between a woman and her doctor. I believe in women choosing to parent. I don't believe in forcing women to parent. I don't believe in criminalizing drug use during pregnancy because I want women to seek medical treatment (not entirely related but part of the same slippery slope).

You are free to disagree with me. You are free to be pro-life - but until the pro-life movement actually lives a pro-life lifestyle, I'm probably not going to listen to them.
 
#36 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

You are free to be pro-life - but until the pro-life movement actually lives a pro-life lifestyle, I'm probably not going to listen to them.
It's really interesting, I think I see a pattern here. People (not just you) are seeing the personality of a movement based on its most notorious or vocal members.

What if your typical pro-lifer were more like the woman who volunteers for the homeless? And not rich people who think they can dictate what everybody else does and do whatever they want. And who think Rick Santorum is a major hypocrite too?

I wonder if we could align more. I think we could stop talking about the typical points (which seem to speak to the side who says the points but do not at all resonate with the other side).

What if we could all focus on the bottom line, which is as you said, that it's a slippery slope. And that there are some circumstances that most of us would agree that abortion should be allowed. And that it's not "nothing" and shouldn't be abused.
 
#37 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by laohaire View Post

What if we could all focus on the bottom line, which is as you said, that it's a slippery slope. And that there are some circumstances that most of us would agree that abortion should be allowed. And that it's not "nothing" and shouldn't be abused.
The problem is, there won't be legislation that everyone can agree on. It quickly becomes an all or nothing issue.

And its not limited to abortion. There is an attack on women's access to birth control going on right now, and any woman who speaks up about it is labeled a slut who can't keep her pants on (ummm men can't keep em on either - I really hate that double standard). The Supreme Court is hearing next week oral arguments about health care reform - depending on what they decide (we should know sometime before 2013) women's health care could be in jeopardy.

It's fine to be pro-life, but then there need to be in place social programs that actually help under privileged women get the healthcare they need (no, not everyone can UC safely, sometimes people do need to be under the care of a midwife or obgyn), that help those children get healthcare, and then help those women actually afford to raise those children - especially if you aren't going to allow affordable access to birth control to sexually active women. And don't tell me that we shouldn't have sex if we don't want babies - married women have sex. Single women have sex. Married men have sex. Single men have sex. Until men are willing to go without sex, women shouldn't be required to go without sex either. The double standard is nauseating. And pro-lifers need to be willing to pay for those programs - the conservatives are the more "pro-life" party, and yet all they want are tax cuts for the rich, and higher tax burdens for the poor. How does that help children born to poor families?
 
#38 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by laohaire View Post

What if your typical pro-lifer were more like the woman who volunteers for the homeless? And not rich people who think they can dictate what everybody else does and do whatever they want. And who think Rick Santorum is a major hypocrite too?
I volunteer too. Volunteering doesn't make someone able to dictate mine, or anyone elses, reproductive choices. Nor does it make them any more "morally" sound.
 
#39 ·
I'm responding to the part where you described who you think pro-lifers are - rich hypocrites, basically. And you said that until pro-lifers are NOT rich hypocrites, you will not be engaging in any meaningful discussion with them.

So I'm pointing out that maybe who you think pro-lifers are is actually just a subset of them. Would you talk about the issue with pro-lifers who care about babies after they are born, who care about women, who are not hypocrites, who are not steeped in privilege, who think similar thoughts as you about Rick Santorum?
 
#40 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by laohaire

So I'm pointing out that maybe who you think pro-lifers are is actually just a subset of them. Would you talk about the issue with pro-lifers who care about babies after they are born, who care about women, who are not hypocrites, who are not steeped in privilege, who think similar thoughts as you about Rick Santorum?
If they supported implementing meaningful social programs to deal with the consequences of making abortion illegal, sure. But so far, all I've seen from the pro-life camp is that if you don't want babies don't get preggo.
 
#42 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post

ssm...google the morning center if you want to see what kind of programs are being implemented for women and their babies
Thats great. Wheres the massive scale thats needed to combat the horrible poverty that is faced by women all over the country? One clinic is great - but its not going to solve the problem. There needs to be universal health care, it needs to be widely available and easily accessible to everyone.

Also, I generally do not like programs thats home page states: "lavish the love of Jesus Christ on women and unborn children who desperately need it"

Not all women who get pregnant are religious, and the last thing they need is for religious BS shoved down their throats.

AND - its not just maternity care that women need, its childcare, reliable daycare so that they can work to feed that extra mouth. Afordable, GOOD daycare (in my city, which has more than its fair share of poverty, it costs me $1,400/month to have my ds in a good quality child care).

The amount of social services needed is not enough - just maternity care isn't going to cut it. Our country is not willing to provide services to people on a large scale. The services that are available are mostly inadequate.
 
#45 ·
Sigh. I am trying to engage in a meaningful, thoughtful discussion but you are not willing to come to the table.

I agree it's about more than abortion.

But you do not want to discuss it. You have decided what everybody thinks. And I think that's a huge shame, especially since it's not just you.

Personally, I am willing to listen and will probably agree with you on 99% of what you say but I can't discuss without anybody else's participation. I'm just talking to myself.
 
#46 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by laohaire View Post

Sigh. I am trying to engage in a meaningful, thoughtful discussion but you are not willing to come to the table.

I agree it's about more than abortion.

But you do not want to discuss it. You have decided what everybody thinks. And I think that's a huge shame, especially since it's not just you.

Personally, I am willing to listen and will probably agree with you on 99% of what you say but I can't discuss without anybody else's participation. I'm just talking to myself.
I haven't seen that. What have you contributed other than to tell me that pro-lifers think Santorum is just as loony as I think he is? I responded to someones post about the morningside christian group that wants to give free maternity care to people - but that doesn't solve the problem.

If you agree that its about more than just abortion, then tell me more than that. I haven't decided what everyone thinks - I just know that I am staunchly pro-choice because I believe that women should CHOOSE parenthood. I think it should be a choice. And until there are huge steps taken to support women in parenting, abortion needs to be a choice. It needs to be. There are religious fanatics trying right this very second to make D&C procedures illegal to remove dead fetuses from a woman's body. That is the pro-life movement that is happening right now. Whether most pro-lifers think that way is a different thing entirely, but the people who are actually in power and have political power to make changes are making the wrong ones. And I don't see the pro-life movement trying to stop them.
 
#47 ·
I'll discuss with you. I'm not out to finger point or name call and I think we're on the opposite sides of the spectrum on this

Quote:
Originally Posted by laohaire View Post

Sigh. I am trying to engage in a meaningful, thoughtful discussion but you are not willing to come to the table.

I agree it's about more than abortion.

But you do not want to discuss it. You have decided what everybody thinks. And I think that's a huge shame, especially since it's not just you.

Personally, I am willing to listen and will probably agree with you on 99% of what you say but I can't discuss without anybody else's participation. I'm just talking to myself.
I can completely understand why both sides get emotional and throw out irrational thought.

I don't care which politician is a hypocrite ( I think they all are). I do care about what is happening with women's health. The recent language that has been coming out from some of the more conservative states have me a little worried... OK a lot worried. I'm trying to wade through it all but it seems that the uterus is a battle zone. Where the life of the fetus/baby whatever people feel it should be called outweighs the life of the person who is carrying fetus/baby. When so many different stipulations are put into place it becomes a pile of paperwork and finger pointing. The Moral compass of another should not weigh down the mother.

I would like to point out that I do not side with anyone on this issue in full force. I can not say that conservatives are hypocrites trying to bring down the women anymore than I can say the liberals are baby killers. I don't agree with either. I see the moral dilemma of one group over another. I get that. However what needs to be done is not that simple. A woman should have every right to her body. Her moral compass should not be swayed by any group. The reasons for her unwanted pregnancy can be all over the spectrum, lack of education ( whose fault is that?), no access to good health care (fault?), poor family structure (fault?), a medical issue, or simply a poor choice that she cannot see through. While every potential life could have a blessed outcome, many do not. My biggest issue is over the ones who do not. That really is for another conversation.

Women's health is under attack again and it's hidden in abortion laws. In those laws they add little tidbits that make life harder and choices more difficult. And the loudest proponents of attacking women's health... Are men.
 
#48 ·
OK, trying to keep on topic here....

Quote:
A woman should have every right to her body. Her moral compass should not be swayed by any group.
How then do you respond to the argument I made in my original post? To recap

"A woman should have every right to her body" - I assume you mean "every right to do what she wants with her body"? But abortion and infanticide obviously involve someone else's body as well - the baby's - so that should really be phrased as "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else" (or at least, sign the consent form allowing someone else to do the killing).

If you believe that wholesale, then you eventually descend into complete anarchy - if we can all do whatever we want with our bodies, even if harms others, then rape and murder and theft and genocide are all OK. I'm going to assume you don't believe that. :p So presumably you mean "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else, under specific circumstances". Right?

So what are those circumstances, and how do the circumstances of abortion (which you think should be legal) and infanticide (which you find "disturbing", although I don't believe you commented on whether you felt it should be legal or not) differ? A PP mentioned that a baby in the womb can only be looked after by one specific mother, whereas a baby outside the womb could be looked after by others; but that distinction would seem to assign moral worth to babies solely on the basis of convenience. If it were impossible for a mother to hand over her baby for fostering/adoption; if she were the only person available to care for it; would not infanticide be permissible, under that paradigm? If her "moral compass" were OK with it, and she wanted to use her body as she pleased (ie not feeding and caring for a helpless baby - or I suppose, by extension, an invalid or otherwise helpless person)... would you believe we didn't have the right to force her to do it, and that therefore she could order the death of the baby, or even perform it herself if she wanted to use her body that way?

In other words: you seem to be pro-choice but anti-infanticide, but what's your reasoning that finds a moral distinction between the two?
 
#49 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

OK, trying to keep on topic here....

How then do you respond to the argument I made in my original post? To recap

"A woman should have every right to her body" - I assume you mean "every right to do what she wants with her body"? But abortion and infanticide obviously involve someone else's body as well - the baby's - so that should really be phrased as "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else" (or at least, sign the consent form allowing someone else to do the killing).

We view this so differently. I'm very grey where you're in black and white.

If you believe that wholesale, then you eventually descend into complete anarchy - if we can all do whatever we want with our bodies, even if harms others, then rape and murder and theft and genocide are all OK. I'm going to assume you don't believe that. :p So presumably you mean "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else, under specific circumstances". Right?

If you would prefer those specific words then sure. Those are your words. Again, I don't see it as a women gleefully skipping to the clinic and opting for a hanger over a suctioning device. There are many reasons a woman could want or need to end the possiblity of the fetus/baby.

So what are those circumstances, and how do the circumstances of abortion (which you think should be legal) and infanticide (which you find "disturbing", although I don't believe you commented on whether you felt it should be legal or not) differ? A PP mentioned that a baby in the womb can only be looked after by one specific mother, whereas a baby outside the womb could be looked after by others; but that distinction would seem to assign moral worth to babies solely on the basis of convenience. If it were impossible for a mother to hand over her baby for fostering/adoption; if she were the only person available to care for it; would not infanticide be permissible, under that paradigm? If her "moral compass" were OK with it, and she wanted to use her body as she pleased (ie not feeding and caring for a helpless baby - or I suppose, by extension, an invalid or otherwise helpless person)... would you believe we didn't have the right to force her to do it, and that therefore she could order the death of the baby, or even perform it herself if she wanted to use her body that way?

Black and white still. We both see this so differently and maybe it not worth discussing at all. I in no way feel I should try to change your mind on how you feel. Mostly because you live in another country and your votes do not touch my uterus.

This issue is so much more complex then calling a women a murderer. It really is.

In other words: you seem to be pro-choice but anti-infanticide, but what's your reasoning that finds a moral distinction between the two?

Heres the kicker, I don't believe in the death penalty either.
So if you don't mind and you insist on black and white thinking which is completely your right.

Would you tell a mother who has found out her child is dead in utero she should be forced to carry it til it comes out on it's own? Theres a politician here that feels that way.

Should a mother who is waiting on a miscarriage not be allowed a D&C... because it's deemed abortive?

Should the morning after pill not be supplied to women? For any reason at all?

Should birth control be kept from women altogether?

Should a mother carrying a baby who will not live outside the womb for any mirade of reasons (obviously genetics) be forced to carry her baby those extra few months even though it's futile?

These are the issues we're facing right now. It's not should abortion be legal or illegal. It's should women have any choices at all? Some of them ridiculous and some of them refering to us as cattle.

Maybe I didn't answer the questions you asked to the fullest. I honestly tried.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top