Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » After-birth abortion (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: After-birth abortion
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It was only a matter of time, and here we are .

quote:
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”.

<snip>

“The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

<snip>

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“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.”

That's a good point, a disabled child that becomes "an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole", especially when "state economically provides for their care" should be candidates for after-birth abortions. Not only are they expensive, they're just, you know, so damn inconvenient too. Disposing of them before they become a person and become entitled to a right to life makes sound economic, cultural and moral sense.

I guess the only question is when do they become a burden ... uh, I mean, person? Traditionally it's been considered a newborn from the time of birth through the 28th day of life. Clearly after birth abortions are cool up until the 28th day after birth according to these guys. However. some disabilities, like Autism, may not be diagnosed until 2-3 years old. Should the mother have the right to elect an after birth abortion then? It's her body, her choice after all.

[ March 01, 2012, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with one of their two premises: that there is no fundamental moral difference between killing a 9 month year old fetus and a 1 day year old child.

I, of course, reject their second premise; both are murder.

Posts: 3445 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And euthanasia for the elderly who can no longer care for themselves, after they have been duly persuaded by the mandatory end of life counseling, is after you sit down and really think about it just another form of late, late term abortion.
Posts: 7412 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I deleted a post because I thought I had read a clarification from one of the article's authors, but it was from someone else who has written similar arguments in the past.

I am wondering if this new article is similar to the "green paper" type of examination that John Harris is talking about here:


quote:
I wish to clarify my position on infanticide to correct the impression that infanticide is something I defend or advocate. There is a big difference between an analysis of the moral symmetry of some abortions and some cases of infanticide on the one hand, and the defence of infanticide or indeed the advocacy of infanticide on the other. I have always drawn a clear line between what I call “Green Papers” and “White Papers” in ethics. Green papers are intellectual discussions of the issues, white papers are policy proposals. I have never advocated or defended infanticide as a policy proposal.

I would not and do not advocate the legalization of infanticide on the basis of any alleged ethical parity of infanticide with abortion.

http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/02/29/john-harris-clarifies-his-position-on-infanticide/

If this was a "white paper", then...wow! Crazy. They missed their calling as Nazis.

Posts: 6145 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
mandatory end of life counseling
You do realize that such a thing has never existed and was never proposed, right? The mandate was that end of life counseling, when voluntarily requested, be covered by insurance. It's mandatory in the same way that knee surgery is mandatory under my current health plan - i.e., the health plan must pay for it if I elect to undergo it.

ETA: It's fun to note that Sarah Palin, who referred to this mandatory coverage for a voluntary discussion with one's primary care provider as "death panels" had previously publicly advocated for end of life counseling as governor.

[ March 01, 2012, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3434 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Such a thing as after birth abortion never existed and was never proposed either right?

Oh wait... that was a law that Obama supported.

After birth abortion is much more extreme than end of life counseling, mandatory or not.

Once the camel gets his nose in the tent, there won't be any stopping the intrusiveness.

Posts: 7412 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
IIRC, a physician "aborted" two babies within minutes AFTER they'd been born, and was found not guilty of murder in New York. The trouble is, despite the political rhetoric bullsheet, the actual groundwork defending abortion rights in the US has far less to do with a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body, and more to do with courts pretending authority worship of medical credentials ...
Posts: 40789 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
cherry,

Nice pivot. When called out on a proven-beyond-a-doubt big lie, just ignore it and throw out another one.

Can you provide a source for the "mandatory end of life counseling"? One that has not been disproved, preferably one from the actual text of the law that makes it mandatory? I didn't think so. So why do you pollute the discussion here by bringing it up?

Can you provide a source for Obama supporting a law about after birth abortion? Did you mean late term abortion, because that is obviously different. I'll be anxiously awaiting your source to back up your very contentious claim.

Posts: 1954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Second hit on google for the paper's authors

quote:
Dr Minerva said she had notified police about the death threats and feared for her safety.

''This was a theoretical and academic article,'' she said.

''I didn't mean to change any laws. I'm not in favour of infanticide. I'm just using logical arguments.''

The paper had been taken out of context, she said. It was intended for an academic community.

''This debate is not new. The debate has been going on for 30 years,'' she said. ''I don't think people outside bioethics should learn anything from this paper. I've received hundreds of emails saying, 'You should die'.''

Nothing to see here, move along.
Posts: 1954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
I agree with one of their two premises: that there is no fundamental moral difference between killing a 9 month year old fetus and a 1 day year old child.

Happy partial birthday, son. Snap.
Posts: 40789 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The point isn't that it's mandatory now or that it will be mandatory tomorrow. It's the slippery slope. Having to buy health insurance from a private company wasn't mandatory either, before it was.

Newt recently called Obama on his position in favor of infanticide, and Newt used that exact word. All you have to do is type in "Obama infanticide" and you can pick your own sources and see the debate and quibbling about it.

-------------------------------------------

> Dr Minerva said she had notified police about the death threats and feared for her safety.


> ''I didn't mean to change any laws. I'm not in favour of infanticide. I'm just using logical arguments.''

I agree with her logic and Joshua too. If the mother finds out the child will be handicapped a week before birth and decides to have a late term abortion because of it, all perfectly legal too, then that's right there next to infanticide. The logic is sound, but the resulting conclusion can cut either way.

Posts: 7412 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some people make abortion choices based on ultrasound sex determination. Should we restrict that?
Posts: 40789 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry,

The point IS that you said it was mandatory, and you know perfectly well that it is not.

Elected Republican officials are in favor of a law to force children to pray to Jesus in school.

Well, actually, they just want to allow children to pray. But that is not the point. It's the slippery slope.

See, it's just as much pure bs when I say it as when you say it.

And if you say Newt accused Obama of infanticide, that's all the proof I need. No need to provide actual sources, just put the burden on me to find it. [/sarcasm]

I see this as a pro-life article. It tries to show that leaving the womb is an arbitrary threshold, so if you are repulsed by infanticide, you should be repulsed by abortion.

I just find it interesting that there are posters who actually think this is a defense of infanticide

Posts: 1954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't say it was mandatory right now. I'm saying that talking the elderly into euthanasia and our society's knack for talking its pregnant women into abortion share a common denominator.
Posts: 7412 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Second hit on google for the paper's authors

quote:
Dr Minerva said she had notified police about the death threats and feared for her safety.

''This was a theoretical and academic article,'' she said.

''I didn't mean to change any laws. I'm not in favour of infanticide. I'm just using logical arguments.''

The paper had been taken out of context, she said. It was intended for an academic community.

''This debate is not new. The debate has been going on for 30 years,'' she said. ''I don't think people outside bioethics should learn anything from this paper. I've received hundreds of emails saying, 'You should die'.''

Nothing to see here, move along.
What do you think was the purpose of this "just using logical arguments" that was only "intended for an academic community"? If the intent was that nobody "should learn anything from this paper" why publish via such a huge platform as the Journal of Medical Ethics? A email or listserv debate among those actually engaged in this would have been easier, faster and more relevant to engaging in such "theoretical and academic" debate.

"I'm just using logical arguments." Sounds like the distant cousin of, "I'm just following orders." There is something to see here ... what do you think it could be?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've seen a mostly sane discussion between right-to-infanticide advocates and opponents two months ago at http://lesswrong.com/lw/90l/welcome_to_less_wrong_2012/5kk8

Such a discussion couldn't happen here, because most people here aren't interested in sanity, they're interested in taking digs at others.

Posts: 3022 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm saying that talking the elderly into euthanasia and our society's knack for talking its pregnant women into abortion share a common denominator.
Yes there is. It's called Right-Wing Delusion, since neither of them exist. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 7976 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2 wrote
quote:
why publish via such a huge platform as the Journal of Medical Ethics?
Circulation of Journal of Medical Ethics: 1,495
Posts: 1954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
G2 wrote
quote:
why publish via such a huge platform as the Journal of Medical Ethics?
Circulation of Journal of Medical Ethics: 1,495
And?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is one of the primary functions of an ethics journal; there's nothing fishy about the forum she chose.

Have you read the editorial justification?

Posts: 864 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
I've seen a mostly sane discussion between right-to-infanticide advocates and opponents two months ago at http://lesswrong.com/lw/90l/welcome_to_less_wrong_2012/5kk8

Such a discussion couldn't happen here, because most people here aren't interested in sanity, they're interested in taking digs at others.

I've seen a couple good abortion debates here.
Posts: 40789 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At first, I thought this had to be a hoax, or Swiftian satire...but some people really believe this?

Most countries, including European democracies, are a bit more restrictive than the U.S. when it comes to abortion laws. Permissive during the first trimester, heavily restricted to emergency-only after that. This has always struck me as being the only sane approach.

It is worth noting, however, that there is an empirically measurable difference between the brain activity of a child in the womb and one that has just come out of it (or is just about to). It's more than just physical location -- so the long-standing premise that a fetus at x-months of development is essentially the same being whether in or out (prematurely or not) flows from an incorrect premise.

Posts: 2024 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I make this point only because the thrust of this discussion seems to be that late-term abortion is essentially the same as killing an extant fetus, or that abortion leads to infanticide.
Posts: 2024 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It is worth noting, however, that there is an empirically measurable difference between the brain activity of a child in the womb and one that has just come out of it (or is just about to)."

Please cite. I'd been taught the opposite to be true in anatomy and physiology classes.

Posts: 40789 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kid, what do your studies say about the brain wave state of a child that's been *partially* born?
Posts: 40789 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are measurable differences between the brain activity of a sleeping person and a conscious person, as well as between a person in a dark room and in bright sunlight.
Posts: 10236 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not easily found with minimal research -- wanted to go back to the Sagan book I read long ago and check footnotes, but it's not at hand and his online essay with Anne Druyan doesn't address it. He referred to a process that happens pre-birth. It's actually beside the point for me, maybe I wasn't clear. I oppose abortion of any fetus at the level of development at which it is capable of recognizably human "thinking," which occurs in the 3rd trimester. Before then, there really is no mind to speak of.

Point being, in or outra, same brain or not, is not relevant to my view on abortion. I mentioned it as a curiosity.

Posts: 2024 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald,

Those are not permanent structural changes. But again, really beside the point for my argument.

Posts: 2024 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

You claimed the journal was a "huge platform". I pointed out the circulation was 1,495.

A rational person would conclude it is not in fact a huge platform. What did you do? [Wink]

Posts: 1954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Infanticide its not the issue here, as many threads by Cherry and G2 aren't about the supposed topic. That's easily seen by their lack of interest or honesty in how they respond to factual responses that demonstrate that their premises are false. That pattern happens in almost all of their threads.

The simple truth is that their mantra is they think, therefore they are right.

Kid, most organs are fully functional before birth, but not all. If the brain was the same wouldn't we be able (in theory) to reinsert the post-birth infant back into a womb environment?

Posts: 6702 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
FWIW, I find the author's thesis abhorrent, but the outrage is excessive as there is no context in which a "slippery slope" could happen in our society. It's a purely academic argument.

Aris, you're right that that is a better (still not great) thread on the issue. At least there were some facts in there giving context to the discussion.

Posts: 6702 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They say if you've been playing poker with a group of people for a while and you don't know who the patzy is or you don't think there is one, then it's you!

If a similar fashion, if someone has been living on this good green Earth for a number of years and they don't know who is evil or they don't even know if evil exists...

Posts: 7412 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sometimes deep suspicion and mistrust is justified, and sometimes it's just paranoia.

On the one hand, Obama is trying to take away your guns by ceding the 2nd Amendment to UN control, "they" are trying to kill babies, Obama was born in Kenya, Bush was behind 9/11, Planned Parenthood is trying to commit genocide on blacks, Pennsylvania judges are the vanguard of instituting sharia law in this country, and public education is a deeply twisted indoctrination program by "liberals".

OTOH, it's fine to oppose abortion on moral grounds, people do have the right to own guns, one can fairly ask that all Presidential candidates demonstrate that they meet the criteria for election, you have the right to push for additional materials about 9/11 if you think there might still be unpublicized information, you can ask about and evaluate the basis for any legal decision, and it's fair criticism to think that our public education system could stand improvement.

Which group do you belong to? The answer to the above is determined mainly by one's interest and willingness to amend and reverse a position based on new information that undermines your sources or premises. Does that describe you?

[ March 04, 2012, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 6702 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here we're basically talking about whether or not infanticide is evil. If you have to ask or you're confused about the issue, that tells you much right there.
Posts: 7412 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Kid, most organs are fully functional before birth, but not all. If the brain was the same wouldn't we be able (in theory) to reinsert the post-birth infant back into a womb environment?
Either I explained myself very poorly, or this question is a strange non sequitur.

In or out, I do not think there is any defensible argument for "aborting" a 3rd trimester fetus except in the most extreme circumstances of absolute necessity.

My earlier point was about an irreversible structural change, not a circumstantial condition.

Posts: 2024 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Here we're basically talking about whether or not infanticide is evil.
But you liked it so much when you "respectably" discussed all those nifty moral justifications for torture, bombing other nations with flimsy justifications, etc, etc...

quote:
If you have to ask or you're confused about the issue, that tells you much right there.
I oppose infanticide: there you have it. But do you oppose torture? And bombing other nations with flimsy justifications? How many infants died and are still dying because of your war on Iraq?
Posts: 3022 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Here we're basically talking about whether or not infanticide is evil. If you have to ask or you're confused about the issue, that tells you much right there."

Infanticide is evil, which everyone here agrees with (and you'll note that I called the author's point of view abhorrent), but is that what is keeping this thread going? Reading your posts I see that you are highlighting liberal policies of mandatory end of life counseling, euthanasia and pushing women into having abortions. It's been very clearly pointed out to you that those are red herrings.

Kid, I may have misread you. I think that 1st trimester abortions should be the woman's decision, with no state interference; 2nd trimester abortions should the woman's decision, but with counseling; I'm also troubled by voluntary 3rd trimester abortions, but they should be allowed as a matter of health based on a medical diagnosis. However, I do note that this thread is an almost all-male discussion. Should we take on female contraception next?

Posts: 6702 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do not oppose torture in all circumstances. It gets results that save lives. In fact, I'd even open it up a bit to convicts who we know are guilty so we can find out where the bodies of their victims are in order to give them decent burials. I'm not saying water board them all, but make them uncomfortable such as no heat or air conditioning, and bread and water with vitamin supplements until they tell us what they know. I'd also get rid of all "time off for good behavior" where good behavior is basically just not stabbing someone and change it to define good behavior as working hard and learning a skill or trade and then give time off for that type of good behavior.

I'm also actually for the right of people to die if they want to, and to do so in a dignified manner. I'd want to be cautious though about pushing them into it for the (cost) benefit of society instead of it being their own choice.

I'm probably not even against all infanticide, depending on the details and definitions. Obama was in favor of leaving a child alone in a dark closet to let him or her die in a case in which there was a botched or unsuccessful abortion and the child was so badly off that he or she would die eventually anyway. Well, I may be adding to it to make it nicer actually. Maybe the child wouldn't die soon anyway, but let's say that they would. I'm not opposed to letting the child die, infanticide perhaps by not going to heroic efforts to prolong life when it will be a futile gesture and put the child through even more pain unnecessarily, but what I'm opposed to is just throwing the child into a dark closet and letting them die in pain and fear, alone and unloved. I would support letting a nurse hold the child if they are conscious and administering medication for pain until the child dies so not necessarily going to heroic lifesaving efforts that are not likely to be successful.

Posts: 7412 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's even a justification for infanticide under some circumstances. For example, separating siamese twins is frequently infanticide.

While many that pretend to be pro-choice yammer on about the right of a woman over her own body, they ultimately don't use that argument to defend abortion rights, but rather use a miserable argument that an unborn fetus isn't a person. [Roll Eyes]

When it comes to a serious moral discussion, torture is a completely inadequate comparison to infanticide, since torture presumes an intent to cause pain, whereas infanticide may presume a knowledge that the infant will die without intent to cause death of such infant, e.g., with separation of siamese twins as stated above.

The simple act which (if combined with malicious intent) constitutes torture, would not be torture if the intent was different. For example, there are medical reasons to have to pull a fingernail, or to stick a metal rod up a man's penis, or to do all sorts of stuff that without benign medical intent, would probably be torture.

[ March 04, 2012, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 40789 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The theistic view of the matter is what confuses me. If someone believes all innocent children go to heaven, wouldn't it logically mean that it's much less horrible (or even a good) to kill an innocent child than to kill a convicted murderer -- since the former will be going to heaven and the latter is going to hell?

[ March 04, 2012, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3022 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1