Kill The Infants! - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 68 Old 03-04-2012, 07:02 PM - Thread Starter
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,944
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)

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.


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#2 of 68 Old 03-04-2012, 07:44 PM
 
Imakcerka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)

Interesting.  I'm okay with abortion, no flames please.  I'm certainly not okay with killing an infant... though I could certainly see how some would be okay with this if in fact baby was faced with extreme circumstances.  That being said there really isn't much of an excuse for it when there are so many other options before the baby is born to determine whether or not the baby will in fact have a long suffer-able road ahead.  This part really bothered me though

 

Although it is reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is against the best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down's syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’.3 But, in fact, people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.5

 

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

 

Based on the idea that the child will be a burden to society and Tax payers...  Holy interesting!

 

The Downs issue is personal to me though.  As I suppose most people will be able to find something that will be personal to them about it.  My great uncle was downs and as a kid he was my only friend.  We were buddies.  Stole candy from the store together and played barbies.  He rocked!  Rest in peace Tio Mario.

Imakcerka is offline  
#3 of 68 Old 03-05-2012, 09:45 AM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I am going to leave this here for now.  Please remember that debates of abortion are not welcome on MDC.  Please, also, consider your word choice.


 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
#4 of 68 Old 03-08-2012, 09:09 AM
 
Super Pickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,710
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

WARNING: TRIGGER

 

I wasn't able to access the article. However, your summary reminded me of something I read recently. I got a book from the library called "Message from an Unknown Chinese Mother" in which a popular Chinese broadcast journalist shared stories of Chinese mothers who had given up their baby girls (or had them taken from them). The book explores how the one-child policy, the traditional preference for boys, and women's lack of options lead to sex-selective abortions, infanticide, and abandonment of girls.  The author wanted to help Chinese adoptees understand why they might have been given up.

 

Anyway, the journalist shares how she was at the home of some peasants when a baby girl was born and immediately tossed into the slops pail to drown. She tried to grab it, but two policemen who were escorting her held her back, saying" We do things differently here." She protested that it was a living child, but they simply said, "It's not a child. If it were a child, we would be taking care of it now, wouldn't we?" It occurred to me that in these cultures, it was only a child if they wanted to keep it. And no one wanted to keep a first-born girl. They wanted to have a boy for the first born.  So if it was a girl, it was "not a child."

Turquesa likes this.
Super Pickle is offline  
#5 of 68 Old 03-08-2012, 10:38 AM - Thread Starter
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,944
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)

That story gave me chills. This is what I fear could happen someday.

 

Think the great USA is immune to infanticide? I hope it is, and we must work hard to keep it that way. Do not be so naive as to think it could never happen here.  We should not allow such "ethical debates" (ha, ethical) to ever become a reality. Don't let anyone tell you a one child policy is good either---let's learn from China.

 

This article is just the beginning of a slippery slope. If infants are allowed to be killed, who will be next? The elderly? Severely disabled people? Will only healthy, contributing people be allowed to live, while others are labeled "not a person" because they do not contribute or are financial burdens?  (Here's a related link--Bill Gates on death panels.....deprive an elderly person the last months of life so you can use the money to employ 10 teachers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MZG9vK0W8 )

 

This could be the start of something horrible, and I want to warn you what is going on. We will not tolerate the practice of infanticide.

member234098 likes this.

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#6 of 68 Old 03-10-2012, 04:08 PM
 
Cyllya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I can't see the article either, so I'm going off the OP's summary....

 

Even though I'm pro-choice, I often find myself disturbed by any pro-choice arguments in the vein of "Fetuses aren't people because..." since most of them are equally applicable to born babies. Our culture is generally quite strongly against the killing of born babies to the extent that any "It's okay to kill babies because..." argument will automatically be considered absurd and evil regardless of what reasons it gives. Are you sure the authors of that paper aren't actually making a round-about anti-abortion argument, by pointing out that those not-a-person arguments are the same for both babies and fetuses/embryos?

 

 

 

Quote:
Think the great USA is immune to infanticide? I hope it is, and we must work hard to keep it that way. Do not be so naive as to think it could never happen here.  We should not allow such "ethical debates" (ha, ethical) to ever become a reality. Don't let anyone tell you a one child policy is good either---let's learn from China.

 

Well, it's comforting to keep in mind that society seems to get nicer to children (and everybody else, for that matter) over time. I think abortion being illegal is a relatively newfangled idea in the grand scheme of things. Some countries are making it so you're not allowed to hit your kids at all, and others are at least putting restrictions on it. Et cetera. 

Cyllya is offline  
#7 of 68 Old 03-10-2012, 09:06 PM - Thread Starter
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,944
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)

Ha! I'm almost glad that the article has been lost. Does this mean they removed it? Could an overwhelming negative response be the reason? I don't know, but I assure you, the article was atrocious! I read the entire piece, and it was certainly not anti-abortion. I understand that people are entitled to beliefs, and it seems the authors genuinely believe newborns are not persons yet. (I wonder how long it takes a baby to finally reach the status of Person. A day? A week?)


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#8 of 68 Old 03-10-2012, 10:13 PM
 
Imakcerka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)


I'm wondering if you remember the title and author?  I did read it when you put it up originally.  I wish I had copied it.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Ha! I'm almost glad that the article has been lost. Does this mean they removed it? Could an overwhelming negative response be the reason? I don't know, but I assure you, the article was atrocious! I read the entire piece, and it was certainly not anti-abortion. I understand that people are entitled to beliefs, and it seems the authors genuinely believe newborns are not persons yet. (I wonder how long it takes a baby to finally reach the status of Person. A day? A week?)



 

Imakcerka is offline  
#9 of 68 Old 03-11-2012, 05:03 AM
 
SimonMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
SimonMom is offline  
#10 of 68 Old 03-11-2012, 10:56 AM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The problem with the article is that their first tenet is demonstrably false: "The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent."  In that the fetus is dependent upon a *specific* woman's body for continuing life and an infant is not dependent upon a *specific* woman's body for life they are fundamentally different.  If you start with an incorrect assumption, it is easy to come to an incorrect conclusion.

lifeguard likes this.

 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
#11 of 68 Old 03-12-2012, 11:45 AM - Thread Starter
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,944
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)

Thank you Simon mom!

 

TiredX2, I see your point, and I agree. Now, I know we are not supposed to debate abortion, so I will just add this......according to your conclusion, a fetus is different than a newborn because the fetus is dependent on the specific mother. A newborn is dependent on anybody who can feed and care for it. Well, how would this apply to a late term abortion, where the fetus can survive in a hospital, independent of the mother?

 

 I am not debating abortion, just noting a similarity between newborns and late term abortions, where in both cases the baby can survive without the specific mother.

 

 


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#12 of 68 Old 03-13-2012, 05:14 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyllya View Post

 

 

Well, it's comforting to keep in mind that society seems to get nicer to children (and everybody else, for that matter) over time. I think abortion being illegal is a relatively newfangled idea in the grand scheme of things. Some countries are making it so you're not allowed to hit your kids at all, and others are at least putting restrictions on it. Et cetera. 



No, abortion was illegal for a long time before Roe v. Wade happened (major supreme court case that legalized abortion and defined the circumstances that it is allowed based on a woman's right to privacy, which was read into "life, liberty, and happiness"). One major reason that abortion was made legal, and the main reason I think it should remain legal, was because it became a public health issue. Women in dire straights sought abortions anyway, and often died because they were unsanitary and very dangerous. Most major hospitals across the country had a "septic ward" for women who were dying from infections due to illegal abortions, and it was clear that abortions needed to be legal to save these womens lives - because even though it was illegal women were seeking abortions anyway. 

 

Abortion is a public health issue, a privacy issue, and a medical issue. It is a decision that should be between a woman and her doctor (and if her doctor doesn't agree, she should find someone else). Period.

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
#13 of 68 Old 03-13-2012, 09:25 AM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Thank you Simon mom!

 

TiredX2, I see your point, and I agree. Now, I know we are not supposed to debate abortion, so I will just add this......according to your conclusion, a fetus is different than a newborn because the fetus is dependent on the specific mother. A newborn is dependent on anybody who can feed and care for it. Well, how would this apply to a late term abortion, where the fetus can survive in a hospital, independent of the mother?

 

 I am not debating abortion, just noting a similarity between newborns and late term abortions, where in both cases the baby can survive without the specific mother.


At this point in time, I consider the debate over late term abortions to be a red herring.

 

That said, I have wondered why if *people* are really against late term abortions they don't press to legalize a process where a mother at ____ weeks could give up complete parental rights, have the child and leave.  I do not know, though, how doctors would react---- there are considerable health risks that accompany prematurity. 


 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
#14 of 68 Old 03-13-2012, 09:35 AM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

This is why I consider debates over abortions after age of viability to be a red herring (first source I found, didn't go looking long, I am positive there are better sources):

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5758875

 

 

Quote:

Abortions after fetal viability are extremely rare. Half of the 1.5 million abortions in the U.S. each year take place within the first eight weeks of pregancy; nine in 10 occur within the first 12 weeks. Less than 1 percent are performed after 20 weeks.(11) Some 300-600 abortions -- or up to four one-hundredths of 1 percent -- are performed after 26 weeks.(12)

 

Further:

Quote:

Forty states have enacted legislation severely limiting abortions after fetal viability. Laws in 32 states limit abortions after viability to cases in which the woman's life at serious risk or her health is endangered, although five of the 32 also permit abortions in cases of fetal defect. Laws in seven states permit abortions after viability only when the woman's life is endangered; California is the only state where laws ban late abortions for any reason.

 

 


 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
#15 of 68 Old 03-13-2012, 12:45 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by TiredX2 View Post

 

That said, I have wondered why if *people* are really against late term abortions they don't press to legalize a process where a mother at ____ weeks could give up complete parental rights, have the child and leave.  I do not know, though, how doctors would react---- there are considerable health risks that accompany prematurity. 


The reason this will never happen is that the healthcare costs associated with preemie births are HUGE - and the government doesn't want to bear those costs. Taxpayers don't want to bear those costs.

 

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
#16 of 68 Old 03-13-2012, 01:01 PM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post


The reason this will never happen is that the healthcare costs associated with preemie births are HUGE - and the government doesn't want to bear those costs. Taxpayers don't want to bear those costs.

 


Yes, that is certainly a reason.  I would think, though, that a pro-life organization would start up with fundraising to support it.  Hmmmm


 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
#17 of 68 Old 03-14-2012, 10:31 PM
 
LynnS6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pacific NW longing for the Midwest
Posts: 12,565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'd point out that the article is by philosophers and not MDs. Philosophers are engaged in the business of seeing how far intellectual claims can be pushed. Because of that I can't take the arguments too seriously. (OK, I'll admit to have been put off philosophy completely by having to sit through one too many really really boring philosophy talks in my grad program.) If you reject their initial premise, then their argument falls through.

TiredX2 and CatsCradle like this.

Lynnteapot2.GIF, academicreading.gif,geek.gif wife, WOHM  to T jog.gif(4/01) and M whistling.gif (5/04)
LynnS6 is offline  
#18 of 68 Old 03-17-2012, 07:47 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)



 

Originally Posted by LynnS6 View Post

I'd point out that the article is by philosophers and not MDs. Philosophers are engaged in the business of seeing how far intellectual claims can be pushed. Because of that I can't take the arguments too seriously. (OK, I'll admit to have been put off philosophy completely by having to sit through one too many really really boring philosophy talks in my grad program.) If you reject their initial premise, then their argument falls through.


One of my philosophy professors said that historically, the most influential philosophies tend to pre-date actual practice by about 50 years.  Time will tell how influential these particular philosophers are, but if you read the article, you'll see that they're practically pilfering a highly influential philosopher, Peter Singer, who articulated this argument in his book, Practical Ethics.  Like Singer, the authors are relying on a utilitarian philosophy of what's best for The Greater Good.  Such arguments are often used to justify sending troops to war, (go fight and die for freedom, you country, etc.), and for compulsory vaccination, ("collateral damage" from bad vaccine reactions is OK because we kept disease at bay).  Here's an example of that philosophy from the article's intro (emphasis my own):

 

 

Quote:

 It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down's syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’.3 But, in fact, people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.5

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

I'm not much of a utilitarian (definitely not to this degree of fanaticism!), so this gives me the heeby-jeebies.  The mentally ill, homeless, physically disabled, elderly, substance abusers, and so many other populations could be defined as being "an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole..." 

 

As far as their premise goes, (i.e. that there is no morally relevant distinction between a fetus and newborn), when it comes to making those fine distinctions, all that I hear is subjectivity and arbitrarity.  "If you're THIS dependent, (e.g. fed by breast or bottle, breathing oxygenated air), it's wrong to kill you.  But if you're THAT dependent, (e.g. fed by placenta, ingesting my amniotic fluid), it's OK."

 

So I, for one, accept the authors' premise of equating a fetus to a newborn because I've yet to hear an intellectually or ethically sound defense of killing somebody at one level of dependency or phase of development versus another.  As far as my own ethics go, I err on the side of acceptance and non-discrimination. 

 

On that note, however, I'd be interested in what the authors consider to be a cut-off point.  At what phase of development is it no longer OK to kill a newborn?  Singer says 30 days, but even pediatricians know that developmental milestones happen at different times for different children--especially the disabled, although these authors justify infanticide for the able-bodied--so it it's hardly logical to slap a specific date when--Poof!  Magic!--it's no longer OK to kill someone. 

 

Interesting piece!  Thanks for posting, Becky Bird!


In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#19 of 68 Old 03-17-2012, 08:01 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiredX2 View Post

I am going to leave this here for now.  Please remember that debates of abortion are not welcome on MDC.  Please, also, consider your word choice.


Well, perhaps you can clarify a couple of things.  I once state my views on abortion without challenging someone else's, and a mod removed the post while accusing me of "debating abortion."  It looks like people are sharing their views here, so to clarify....we get to share them, but no one is allowed to challenge them, right?

 

 

Also, would you mind clarifying what you mean by “word choice?”  That criteria can be quite subjective depending on your own personal views.



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiredX2 View Post


At this point in time, I consider the debate over late term abortions to be a red herring.

 

 


 

 

Well, taking your numbers at face value for the sake of argument, that’s still 300-600 annual  babies/infants/fetuses/feta-babies…or whatever you want to call human offspring at this face of development.  (See what I mean about word choice?) 

 

If the numbers have been in that range since Roe v. Wade in 1973, that’s 39 years worth of late-term abortions, or 11,700 to 23,400 total.  Those *are* real casualties—not just abstractions to be dismissed as “red herrings”—and the majority were done on healthy mothers carrying healthy offspring. (Yes, that last link is RTL, but it’s hard to argue with the citations).     

 

So like Becky Bird, I’m not “picking” a debate, but I’m still curious to hear your answer to her question:

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

 

Now, I know we are not supposed to debate abortion, so I will just add this......according to your conclusion, a fetus is different than a newborn because the fetus is dependent on the specific mother. A newborn is dependent on anybody who can feed and care for it. Well, how would this apply to a late term abortion, where the fetus can survive in a hospital, independent of the mother?

 


So I'm wondering how you would apply your conclusion that a fetus is different from a newborn to those specific 11,700 to 23,400 cases?

Youngfrankenstein likes this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#20 of 68 Old 03-17-2012, 07:08 PM - Thread Starter
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,944
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Interesting piece!  Thanks for posting, Becky Bird!



No, thank YOU for posting! You are one of my favorite members here on MDC, and  I always enjoy reading your posts. I admire the way you think!


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#21 of 68 Old 03-18-2012, 03:36 AM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,613
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

 

Quote:
The problem with the article is that their first tenet is demonstrably false: "The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent."  In that the fetus is dependent upon a *specific* woman's body for continuing life and an infant is not dependent upon a *specific* woman's body for life they are fundamentally different.

There are certainly practical distinctions there, but how does this make them not "morally equivalent"? What does that even mean?

 

I found the thrust of this article horrific (from a pro-life and anti-infanticide POV), but I thought the authors actually made a few good points.

 

I have long been baffled by the pro-choice tendency to segregate reproductive "what I do with my body" from run-of-the-mill, everyday "what I do with my body". The strongest argument for legalised abortion is "You can't tell me what to do with my body" - but the government does tell you what to do with your body, all the time. Everything we do involves our bodies, because we're physical beings. If we are told to pay our taxes, we have to use our bodies to do it - either typing with our fingers on the keyboard, using our mouths to tell someone else to do it, walking to the post office, whatever - even just using our brains to make the calculations is a physical event. In that sense, the government is "enslaving" our bodies. Same with pretty much any law - the use of our bodies is restricted in how far we press our feet on the accelerator, whether or not we're allowed to use our hands to wield a gun, build a backyard fence more than so many centimetres high... everything.

 

These authors recognise that. They don't get precious about the distinction between carrying and raising a child, but recognise that both are bodily processes that involve a mother - and if a mother can legally kill her child because nurturing him in utero is causing her mental and/or physical distress (which she can), and if a newborn is fundamentally no different to a fetus (which he isn't), then surely it's logical that she be allowed to kill her child because nurturing him outside the womb is causing her mental and physical distress?

 

Now, the obvious answer to that is "But someone else could take care of him", but that question presupposes that newborns/fetuses have moral worth, ie that it's morally preferable to allow them to live; which the authors haven't granted in the article. At any rate, there are, at least theoretically, situations in which a woman couldn't hand the baby off to someone else. Say a woman was on a plane with her newborn baby and it crashed, and she and the baby ended up on a desert island - little food and water, and the mother would be more likely to survive if she conserved her resources by not breastfeeding and spending her time hunting for food rather than caring for the baby. In that situation, would her killing her baby be morally indistinguishable from abortion? The baby is just as dependent on her body as if it were still in the womb; it will die without her, and only her, physical care.

 

And yes, like a PP, I would be interested to pin these "ethicists" down on just when they feel killing one's offspring is impermissible. I suspect they're shying away from the issue because they know darn well that any number is going to be arbitrary and contentious. Six months (the Lacanian mirror stage of development)? The individual age at which caring for the child is no longer mentally or physically burdensome for the parent?

 

Carrying their logic further, because adoptive parents have the rights to authorise any medical procedures a biological parent would, could a couple adopt a special needs baby (or even a "normal", healthy baby, according to the terms of their argument, if they lived in an abortion-on-demand area) and then perform a "post-birth abortion"?

 

It's all quite fascinating, in a horrific sort of way.


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
#22 of 68 Old 03-18-2012, 02:40 PM - Thread Starter
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,944
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)

Good points, Smokering. So much to think about!


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#23 of 68 Old 03-18-2012, 03:33 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post



No, thank YOU for posting! You are one of my favorite members here on MDC, and  I always enjoy reading your posts. I admire the way you think!



hug2.gif


In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#24 of 68 Old 03-19-2012, 07:49 AM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The way we have handled discussion of abortion on MDC has been evolving.  I don't remember the exact time-line and you have been here for a couple of the changes at least, but basically *at this point* limited discussion of abortion is allowed.  If it ever appears to be veering into a personal territory or a more in-depth debate there may be additional moderation.

 

By "word choice" I am asking you to all be adults.  Everyone knows that there are certain terms that tend to provoke the "other side" and I'm *asking* people to avoid using those terms.  It does no good to needlessly irritate people you are trying to have a discussion with.  Just think before you post and you should be fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Well, perhaps you can clarify a couple of things.  I once state my views on abortion without challenging someone else's, and a mod removed the post while accusing me of "debating abortion."  It looks like people are sharing their views here, so to clarify....we get to share them, but no one is allowed to challenge them, right?

 

 

Also, would you mind clarifying what you mean by “word choice?”  That criteria can be quite subjective depending on your own personal views.



 

 


 

 

Well, taking your numbers at face value for the sake of argument, that’s still 300-600 annual  babies/infants/fetuses/feta-babies…or whatever you want to call human offspring at this face of development.  (See what I mean about word choice?) 

 

If the numbers have been in that range since Roe v. Wade in 1973, that’s 39 years worth of late-term abortions, or 11,700 to 23,400 total.  Those *are* real casualties—not just abstractions to be dismissed as “red herrings”—and the majority were done on healthy mothers carrying healthy offspring. (Yes, that last link is RTL, but it’s hard to argue with the citations).     

 

So like Becky Bird, I’m not “picking” a debate, but I’m still curious to hear your answer to her question:


So I'm wondering how you would apply your conclusion that a fetus is different from a newborn to those specific 11,700 to 23,400 cases?


I have no desire to debate abortion rights.  Child in the womb?  Mother's right to choose.  That is exactly the difference I have stated and it is still there in all 11,700-23,400 cases.  Once there is legislation produced that allows induction with  termination of parental rights at age of viability, then you can debate the morality or ethics of abortion past viability.  As of *right now* it is the only choice for a woman who does not want to continue with a pregnancy.


 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
#25 of 68 Old 03-19-2012, 10:07 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:

Originally Posted by TiredX2 View Post

 

I have no desire to debate abortion rights.  Child in the womb?  Mother's right to choose.  That is exactly the difference I have stated and it is still there in all 11,700-23,400 cases.  Once there is legislation produced that allows induction with  termination of parental rights at age of viability, then you can debate the morality or ethics of abortion past viability.  As of *right now* it is the only choice for a woman who does not want to continue with a pregnancy.


Yeah, I tend to agree with this.

 

I'm also very much of the "if you don't want one don't get one" camp. It's a choice that people have, those rights should be prevented from being further degraded, and people who are opposed can exercise their right not to have an abortion. I'm pro-choice, but have no intention of ever having an abortion (I did get pregnant unintentionally at 23, and had a child out of wedlock while in law school - so I can sympathize when people are pregnant in less than ideal circumstances because its very hard). I realize that not everyone would make the same choice that I did, and am at peace with that.

 

I may not personally agree with someone's choice, but that doesn't give me the right to dictate what that persons choice should be.

 

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
#26 of 68 Old 03-19-2012, 01:12 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,613
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

 

Quote:
I'm also very much of the "if you don't want one don't get one" camp. It's a choice that people have

Those two statements annoy me intensely, as I see them all the time in the abortion debate and they completely miss the point. "If you don't like abortion, don't have one" (as it's usually stated) really, REALLY fails to engage with the pro-life position, which is (generally speaking) that abortion is murder. Saying that to a pro-lifer makes about as much sense as saying "Don't like genocide? Don't commit one" or "Don't like rape? Don't do it". It's asking us to stand by while innocent people (in our view, at least) are being killed, without any argument stating why that's a good/necessary/right thing to do. I'm guessing most of the people who make that statement wouldn't want us to stand tolerantly by and watch them get mugged, saying "Well, I don't agree with mugging, and I'd never do it myself, but it's his body and he has the right to use it as he wishes, so if he chooses to mug you I'm not going to judge him".

 

And "it's a choice that people have" is an utterly meaningless statement. Well, yes it is; so what? Beating my four-year-old with a red-hot poker is a choice I have; shooting up a K-Mart, doing cocaine while pregnant, putting ground glass in my husband's dinner or cheating on him are all choices I have. Everything's a choice. There may be negative consequences to those choices, but I can still exercise them as far as I am able. Or if the "choice" statement means that it's a legally sanctioned choice, well, duh, but isn't the morality of that choice the very question under discussion?

 

Quote:
I may not personally agree with someone's choice, but that doesn't give me the right to dictate what that persons choice should be.

So you're an anarchist?


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
#27 of 68 Old 03-19-2012, 01:32 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

 

Those two statements annoy me intensely, as I see them all the time in the abortion debate and they completely miss the point. "If you don't like abortion, don't have one" (as it's usually stated) really, REALLY fails to engage with the pro-life position, which is (generally speaking) that abortion is murder. Saying that to a pro-lifer makes about as much sense as saying "Don't like genocide? Don't commit one" or "Don't like rape? Don't do it". It's asking us to stand by while innocent people (in our view, at least) are being killed, without any argument stating why that's a good/necessary/right thing to do. I'm guessing most of the people who make that statement wouldn't want us to stand tolerantly by and watch them get mugged, saying "Well, I don't agree with mugging, and I'd never do it myself, but it's his body and he has the right to use it as he wishes, so if he chooses to mug you I'm not going to judge him".

 

And "it's a choice that people have" is an utterly meaningless statement. Well, yes it is; so what? Beating my four-year-old with a red-hot poker is a choice I have; shooting up a K-Mart, doing cocaine while pregnant, putting ground glass in my husband's dinner or cheating on him are all choices I have. Everything's a choice. There may be negative consequences to those choices, but I can still exercise them as far as I am able. Or if the "choice" statement means that it's a legally sanctioned choice, well, duh, but isn't the morality of that choice the very question under discussion?

 


http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

 

The above is my response to you. Most of your post is far too personal for any other response - I feel it verges on a personal attack, and is inflammatory in a way that any response would violate the UA.

 

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
#28 of 68 Old 03-19-2012, 02:48 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,613
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

Please explain how your link is at all relevant to my argument? I've seen that page before, and it doesn't address either of my points; all it does is point out the hypocrisy of some "pro-life" (although obviously not) individuals, which isn't really the issue at hand.

 

As for the rest of my post, I disagree that it's inflammatory (certainly no more so than your original statements, to which I was responding) and it certainly wasn't intended as a personal attack; but if you feel it warrants reporting, report it. Otherwise, feel free to point out any errors of reasoning in my argument, or respond rationally to it.


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
#29 of 68 Old 03-19-2012, 04:15 PM
 
Imakcerka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)

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.

Imakcerka is offline  
#30 of 68 Old 03-19-2012, 04:43 PM
 
philomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 9,443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
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.
philomom is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
News

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off