Killing newborn babies no different from abortion, experts say

Jay794 said:
You can't tell me I'm wrong just for airing my opinion, especially on a subject like this, as long as the law isn't broken then there is no right or wrong
Click to expand...

Yes I can, if you are wrong. The definition you use is factually wrong, it is not an opinion.

There are lots of ways to be wrong without breaking a law (you just proved that :))

Le_Petit_Lapin said:
Call me sick if you like but I couldn't really care less about a lump of bone and skin that is totally reliant on others to survive. They're like little parasites.
Click to expand...

:confused:

This is a very odd statement if it is accurate and not simple trolling.

You were a 'lump of bone and skin' and 'like a little parasite' at one time. Is that still true?

hurfdurf said:
Yes, much better to force a woman to carry a child she doesn't wan't and have her agency of her own body taken away.

You sicken me.
Click to expand...

If she doesn't want a child she shouldn't get pregnant.

The only time this doesn't carry is if she is raped.

PermaBanned said:
Ever played with yourself? How many millions of babys are you depriving of a life when you do that?

I'm of the belief that life begins before conception.
Click to expand...

If you had a wet dream would you break down and cry in the morning when you woke up amongst genocide?
 
The only factor which needs to be figured out is at what point does somebody become an independent person, a separate entity to the mother & deserving of individual rights.

I'd say once they are no longer reliant on the mother (when another could take over the role of care), or when they are physically separated.

We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, one which protects the individual rights of the mother but also protects the rights of the baby.

Allowing a parent to abort a baby on any other grounds than to prevent serious suffering is in a direct violation of the rights of the baby - as only a life of pain & allowing them to die then would be in the best interests of the baby.

The rest of the argument is meaningless, because if they are classed as a person - it's murder.

Our classification of "person" does not have string attached to it, we don't say that people in a coma have no rights & we can kill them at will - once you are born you have rights - it's an important ethical statement as it prevents the abuse of babies by parents or adults.
 
elmarko1234 said:
The only factor which needs to be figured out is at what point does somebody become an independent person, a separate entity to the mother & deserving of individual rights.

I'd say once they are no longer reliant on the mother (when another could take over the role of care), or when they are physically separated.

We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, one which protects the individual rights of the mother but also protects the rights of the baby.

Allowing a parent to abort a baby on any other grounds than to prevent serious suffering is in a direct violation of the rights of the baby - as only a life of pain & allowing them to die then would be in the best interests of the baby.

The rest of the argument is meaningless, because if they are classed as a person - it's murder.

Our classification of "person" does not have string attached to it, we don't say that people in a coma have no rights & we can kill them at will - once you are born you have rights - it's an important ethical statement as it prevents the abuse of babies by parents or adults.
Click to expand...

I think it needs to be before being born.

If a baby can survive post-20 weeks of term, then it is, to all intents and purposes, independent.
 
Gilly said:
If she doesn't want a child she shouldn't get pregnant.

The only time this doesn't carry is if she is raped.
Click to expand...

So you don't account for accidents?

And what is your objection to terminating pregnancy that falls apart if it is rape?

Of course ideally if she doesn't want a child she should avoid getting pregnant, but sadly we live in the real world where statements like that are so redundant they are completely pointless.

"well if he didn't want to be a criminal he shouldn't of been poor!"
 
Gilly said:
If you had a wet dream would you break down and cry in the morning when you woke up amongst genocide?
Click to expand...

Perhaps i didn't explain that too well... if life begins before conception then what does it matter if you stop a single sperm from reaching an egg? That's why i find the conception argument so stupid, it's one in millions. Yes, we're the lucky ones, we've had the opportunity to have a life. But using that as a reason to bring as many people into the world is insane. Those people, potential people, aren't actual people. They don't care because they don't exist. We have too many people on the planet as it stands, we should take care of those we have before we even think about increasing the number.

There are two ways to manage population. The first is to cull, and some might argue that there are certain moral issues with that ;) The second is to stop having so much unprotected sex.
 
BygaM.jpg
 
elmarko1234 said:
The only factor which needs to be figured out is at what point does somebody become an independent person, a separate entity to the mother & deserving of individual rights.

I'd say once they are no longer reliant on the mother (when another could take over the role of care), or when they are physically separated.

We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, one which protects the individual rights of the mother but also protects the rights of the baby.

Allowing a parent to abort a baby on any other grounds than to prevent serious suffering is in a direct violation of the rights of the baby - as only a life of pain & allowing them to die then would be in the best interests of the baby.

The rest of the argument is meaningless, because if they are classed as a person - it's murder.

Our classification of "person" does not have string attached to it, we don't say that people in a coma have no rights & we can kill them at will - once you are born you have rights - it's an important ethical statement as it prevents the abuse of babies by parents or adults.
Click to expand...

This is not what the article is saying though. In essence what it is saying is that:

If you can justify abortion then the same conditions survive at birth.

Therefore, where is the difference and why are we forcing people into paths that are against their choosing through ordeals we would wish on no-one when we as professionals, a community and the state can not support them on that path. They are using the same logic and extrapolating where the right to end life movement is going into areas where it is quite clear that people can not make that choice for themselves and therefore parties have to advocate for that person.
 
Gilly said:
I think it needs to be before being born.

If a baby can survive post-20 weeks of term, then it is, to all intents and purposes, independent.
Click to expand...

Except a baby can not survive without massive assistance for multiple body systems using a wide variety of highly skilled and modern techniques and cutting edge technology.
 
hurfdurf said:
So you don't account for accidents?
Click to expand...

Accidents? You mean accidental pregnancies? If pregnancy is so abhorrent there's always abstinence.

hurfdurf said:
And what is your objection to terminating pregnancy that falls apart if it is rape?
Click to expand...
That's not quite what I said. If the female in question is raped and falls pregnant, then she had no choice in the matter and the 'shouldn't get pregnant then' statement is rendered moot.

hurfdurf said:
Of course ideally if she doesn't want a child she should avoid getting pregnant, but sadly we live in the real world where statements like that are so redundant they are completely pointless.
Click to expand...

That's not strictly speaking true. Just because there are ways and means of disposal of the unwanted foetus, that doesn't render the point meaningless.

Your further point is a strawman argument, and there is certainly a moral argument against theft, so why that would render a moral argument against baby termination redundant I don't know.

Xordium said:
Except a baby can not survive without massive assistance for multiple body systems using a wide variety of highly skilled and modern techniques and cutting edge technology.
Click to expand...
Regardless, there is someone/something that can replace the mother that shouldn't always be required. That makes the baby independant of the mother.
 
Longbow said:
You don't need a link, just put a mirror in front of a baby.
Click to expand...

That raises an interesting point actually, are humans the only animal with self awareness? I remember the first time my dog saw a mirror she barked at it, thinking it was another dog. But now she's not fussed at all.
 
Longbow said:
You don't need a link, just put a mirror in front of a baby.
Click to expand...

Doesn't translate. You wouldn't put a mirror in front of a baby leopard and expect it to know which way to point it's paw.

That a baby doesn't have control of it's faculties at the point of birth doesn't render self-awareness impossible.

PermaBanned said:
That raises an interesting point actually, are humans the only animal with self awareness? I remember the first time my dog saw a mirror she barked at it, thinking it was another dog. But now she's not fussed at all.
Click to expand...

No, mature dolphins and elephants also pass the test.
 
crazy. i haver no issues with abortion if used right and not as contraception (like some people do it). keep it at a short way into the pregnancy.

as someone who has a 6mth old baby i cant see how people could advocate late abortions or certainly killing actual newborns.

scary stuff
 
Gilly said:
I think it needs to be before being born.

If a baby can survive post-20 weeks of term, then it is, to all intents and purposes, independent.
Click to expand...
Well, I agree with that - but the average survival age is closer to the 24 weeks which is the current limit, that example of a baby surviving at 21weeks was a freak occurrence.

It's not that complicated, once it's an independent life-form it's entitled to the right to live, unless massive pain & suffering is all it has to look forward too (not keep it alive to do this.

It's not as complicated when you take that view, as trying to say "baby's are not any more aware of the world than embryos" is a pointless debate, as you could use that argument for people in comas (who do have rights) - besides, since when was being aware a pre-requisite for human rights?.

I thought that was being an "alive human" & no longer an embryo (24 weeks seems a logical point to say that's not the case anymore) which was the only pre-requisite.

It's not like the 24 week line was drawn up randomly anyway, thought has already been put into this.
 
DcD said:
Have to agree. Don't really understand the point in life for kids in wheel chairs completely unable to care for themselves or even hold any social connection with someone. Baffles me.
Click to expand...

I went to school with a boy who was wheelchair bound and unable to care for himself.

He became an award winning poet.

http://www.irishwriters-online.com/hanna-davoren/

Would you have killed him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom