Killing newborn babies no different from abortion, experts say

Gilly said:
Regardless, there is someone/something that can replace the mother that shouldn't always be required. That makes the baby independant of the mother.
Click to expand...

Which of course is very different from what you originally stated:

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

Which is irrelevant because as time moves on that 24 weeks will become 18 then 14 then 2 and all that will have changed is medical technology not the actual fetus. Therefore, what medical science can do is a moot point. You are snuffing out a human life whenever you do it and therefore you need to do it for the rights reasons at the bequest of the interested parties or their advocates.
 
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...

thats not a good test if you put a mirror in front of a person who had never seen one it would take them a few seconds to work out whats going on...

Animals are almost identical to humans just really really stupid they get scared / happy, they plan and hope... its only that we are vastly more inteligent that makes us different..

Your dog had never seen a mirror after some "reasoning" he realised it was jsut a reflection of himself and so now knows to ignore it...
 
Xordium said:
Which of course is very different from what you originally stated:



Which is irrelevant because as time moves on that 24 weeks will become 18 then 14 then 2 and all that will have changed is medical technology not the actual fetus. Therefore, what medical science can do is a moot point. You are snuffing out a human life whenever you do it and therefore you need to do it for the rights reasons at the bequest of the interested parties or their advocates.
Click to expand...

It's not different at all. It is the same statement quantified.

They are independant of the mother, and therefore can be sustained elsewhere and short of medical reasoning should not be terminated.
 
Xordium said:
Which is irrelevant because as time moves on that 24 weeks will become 18 then 14 then 2 and all that will have changed is medical technology not the actual fetus. Therefore, what medical science can do is a moot point. You are snuffing out a human life whenever you do it and therefore you need to do it for the rights reasons at the bequest of the interested parties or their advocates.
Click to expand...

So what are the "right reasons" for 'snuffing out a human life'.

I struggle to find any in this case. The only reason I can think is in self defence when your own life is in danger.
 
Gilly said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't because it won't have self-awareness either. Self-awareness is devolved over time, not whilst in the womb, or just after birth.

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

He became an award winning poet.

Would you have killed him?
Click to expand...

I would say yes, but then it would be easy for you to condemn me because you have hindsight on your side.

If achievements are what warrant existence, then I would argue that the parents could have had an abortion, and given birth to a baby separately a year later, that child could also have have created that poetry and more.
 
hurfdurf said:
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.
Click to expand...

While I believe that abortion should be available in the early stages of pregnancy without strings attached, I also believe that if you consent to have sex then you consent to accept the consequences. No contraception is 100% effective and you need to accept that before getting naked.
 
Spawn said:
Shame your parents never took that view of you when you were born eh??
Click to expand...

I count myself lucky, and and grateful for it.

Gilly said:
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?
Click to expand...

Nah, I grew up and developed an individual personality, newborns don't really have that, they just make a racket and a mess. They're just like little human "blanks" that don't really have any individual aspect to really separate them from another newborn other than their looks.

Then again, I don't much like small children, I find them highly irritating, so I may be biased. ;)
 
Gilly said:
It's not different at all. It is the same statement quantified.

They are independant of the mother, and therefore can be sustained elsewhere and short of medical reasoning should not be terminated.
Click to expand...

No it is not. Independent means to be able to function without support from others and independence from a mother from a nutritional, respiratory, etc point of view is a different thing completely. A 4 yr old would fulfill definition but not the other.
 
Le_Petit_Lapin said:
I count myself lucky, and and grateful for it.



Nah, I grew up and developed an individual personality, newborns don't really have that, they just make a racket and a mess. They're just like little human "blanks" that don't really have any individual aspect to really separate them from another newborn other than their looks.
Click to expand...

That shows how very limited knowledge of childern you have. And I am not convinced your posts aren't simply a case of trolling albeit a rather poor attempt.

Le_Petit_Lapin said:
Then again, I don't much like small children, I find them highly irritating, so I may be biased. ;)
Click to expand...

That from your previous posts clearly shows.
 
spudbynight said:
So what are the "right reasons" for 'snuffing out a human life'.
Click to expand...

Conditions which by their nature have known paths of predictable worsening that will inflict suffering on the person concerned and their family by default.

Or in these kids would you rather central line after central line be inserted, repeated cardiac and respiratory arrests, frequent seizures, extreme pain only controllable my massive sedation, multiple infections, repeated surgery, massive financial outlay, siblings and parents having to watch that lot for week on month and year towards an inevitable outcome. And suggest that is the moral and ethical choice to make ... really? A lot of the kids are like adults with MS etc and just want an end to it all once they can verbalise their feelings. And we should facilitate a humane strategy before it gets unbearable for people irrespective of their age. This is not about life it's about quality of life.
 
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...

We take the life of persons regularly though. The argument in the article is that a new born isn't a person. Have you even read the article?

Xordium, saying that you're read the article what are your views on the adoption bit?
 
Last edited:
So many people disgusted and sickened by eachother in this thread.

To keep up with appearances: I'm sickened and disgusted by all of you, regardless of opinion.
 
Djwayne said:
That shows how very limited knowledge of childern you have. And I am not convinced your posts aren't simply a case of trolling albeit a rather poor attempt.
Click to expand...

Honestly not trolling, I genuinely couldn't care less if they make it legal to get rid of newborns. Its not really any different than getting an abortion really, in both instances it has the potential to grow into a fully individual human.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom