Killing newborn babies no different from abortion, experts say

KNiVES said:
I'm pro-choice but you can't kill a new-born baby, that's just wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't see what difference it makes personally.

If you were to invite the family to meet your new healthy child and then later on have it slaughtered then that would be a bit bonkers, but if the baby has disabilities at birth then I really don't see the problem with getting rid of it humainly at the parent(s)' request.
 
Ahleckz said:
Xordium, saying that you're read the article what are your views on the adoption bit?
Click to expand...

Like I said in my original post I agree with the discussion being raised and I think there needs to be more understanding and honesty in what already occurs. However, like I also stated in my original post I find the article and theory faulty. I do not accept the idea of a "potential person" like I said to Gilly it is the medical knowledge that moves not the capability of the fetus. We all have potential fulfilled or unfilled in many ways and the only thing that will make you truly human is your DNA that specifically says I am Homo sapien.

The notion that this process should be commenced and adoption not discussed just to provide "closure" is kind of stupid in my eyes and clearly is weighing the whole beneficence/non-maleficence thing in a very "wrong" fashion. The authors are talking about this in a purely theoretical ethical sense and I would wager have not got a real clue about the cardiac abnormalities associated with Downs or the airway management issues in TCS. I however have ... and whilst I think there does need to be acknowledgement of rights other than the individual I find their logic faulty and their extrapolations to be rather far reaching. Which of course is no issue now as they will surely be killed themselves before they can publish another article. :p
 
At what point is a baby considered alive? is there an actual official time when Abortion becomes Murder?
 
Jay794 said:
At what point is a baby considered alive? is there an actual official time when Abortion becomes Murder?
Click to expand...

The Abortion Act allowed for up to 28 weeks which was then clarified by Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act to no longer being legal after 24 weeks unless to save the mother's life or prevent physical mental harm or if there is evidence of gross fetal abnormalities.
 
Xordium said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have known people whose conditions deteriorated - Davoren who I mentioned for one. He most certainly wanted to live life.

You just can't go around playing God and killing people. It is wrong no matter how you try and dress it up.

I asked a rhetorical question - there is no justifiable reason to kill people.
 
Gilly said:
Accidents? You mean accidental pregnancies? If pregnancy is so abhorrent there's always abstinence.
Click to expand...

Ah abstinence, an entirely realistic and sensible approach to societies sexual problems. (except of course its an awful way to try and approach human sexuality and causes absolute devastation to youth sexual health statistics)

Gilly said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which was my point.... its a utterly ridiculous thing to say

So what is your opinion then? If you proclaim abortion is wrong, but isn't in the case of rape, how do you justify it. If you do not, then why are you muddying the discourse of this thread?

Abortion is wrong because it kills a baby, unless its rape, in which case, killing a baby is fine, because..... its a fundamental flaw in the argument of anti-choicers (don't use the term pro-life, to suggest someone who is pro-choice is anti life is ridiculous and it is pure propoganda from the anti-choice crowd)

Unless of course you want to go the whole hog and say "abortion is wrong, killing an unborn fetus is wrong, if you are raped deal with it and be forced to have the baby, ala "Rape provides a gift from god"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jan/25/rick-santorum-rape-pregnancy

I am calling you out on this because you seem to be pro choice, but arguing nonsense for the sake of it, which is extremely damaging to the discourse because there are idiots out there who genuinely think abortion should not be an option and these people are causing serious and irreversible damage in the USA and it that same disgusting concept of taking away a woman's right to chose what she does with her body is creeping over here. This of course extends the rape culture we live in.
 
spudbynight said:
Of course, we should just murder an unborn child instead.

You disgust me.
Click to expand...

So, you would rather a woman be forced to carry to term a pregnancy than abort it before it has a chance to form into meaningful life? What if a woman is raped, should she be forced to carry that horrifying torture as well?

And I disgust you? I guess the sight of a woman voting and getting a divorce would disgust Osama Bin Laden so you being disgusted over me wanting a woman to have control over what she does with her body does not affect me in the slightest with it being on par with that kind of logic.

I am very glad your ex had the ability to chose to terminate her pregnancy, a woman's right to chose what she does with her own body is massively important in an educated and modern society if that society is to succeed and be worth living in.
 
spudbynight said:
I have known people whose conditions deteriorated - Davoren who I mentioned for one. He most certainly wanted to live life.

You just can't go around playing God and killing people. It is wrong no matter how you try and dress it up.

I asked a rhetorical question - there is no justifiable reason to kill people.
Click to expand...

Well the conditions would be quite specific if you have read my posts you would have noticed I called into question the authors actual knowledge of the conditions they use as a justification. And there is a big difference between a disease like Davoren has and one that has a known definite end which is what I was on about.
 
But if you're fine with killing a new born where does it end? On the way home from the hospital you're in a car crash and new baby is harmed? Brain damaged? Oh just put back and see if the doctor will kill the baby now? No? I believe abortion is wrong past about three months.
 
The debate is pointless until definite lines are drawn up to determine at what stage it changes from being a growth on the mother, to a separate life-form.

If it's a separate life-form the wishes of the parents are not what's important, the life form would have it's own right to exist.

Until we can provide justification as to where the lines should be drawn & at what age, it's pretty meaningless.

While It's an emotional subject, let's try to not get "out-raged" or disgusted or sickened - while I disagree with aborting new-borns what's required is a valid ethical argument as why we should not - not person A simply declaring it as "evil".

I'd put it at a point in which the newborn is able to survive separated from the mother (the statistical average time) - which is around the 22/24 week mark from what I've read.

Before that it's part of the mother & is not yet an independent life-form, after that date it is.

We don't classify every single sperm & egg as a person, neither do we classify every fertilised egg as a person (most get passed through without growing), by that logic most parents would have multiple dead children.

A line must be drawn somewhere, as otherwise every time a bloke whacks one off he's committing genocide, as they are all could help potentially become a person.

I don't think we can work with potentials, we need to work with when they ACTUALLY ARE a separate entity - which is why I believe we need to drawn a line.

The fact it may require outside help is irrelevant, as disabled people require outside help/out people & we don't classify them as "not people".
 
hurfdurf said:
So, you would rather a woman be forced to carry to term a pregnancy than abort it before it has a chance to form into meaningful life? What if a woman is raped, should she be forced to carry that horrifying torture as well?
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't condone the killing of an innocent.


hurfdurf said:
And I disgust you? I guess the sight of a woman voting and getting a divorce would disgust Osama Bin Laden so you being disgusted over me wanting a woman to have control over what she does with her body does not affect me in the slightest with it being on par with that kind of logic.
Click to expand...

If you think that the killing of an innocent is in some way comparable with universal suffrage then I am just taken aback. I find that viewpoint abhorrent.


hurfdurf said:
I am very glad your ex had the ability to chose to terminate her pregnancy, a woman's right to chose what she does with her own body is massively important in an educated and modern society if that society is to succeed and be worth living in.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I believe another poster was talking about his ex murdering his unborn child.

A woman's right to kill her unborn child is a sign of moral weakness in a society. A just society is judged by how it treats those unable to look after themselves.
 
We all have unfilled potential from conception to the grave of lesser and greater degrees. We need to be more honest about what we are doing and make these decision on the "balance of harm" not obfuscating what we doing by pretending something is an "inanimate object" when it quite clearly is not.

As I have already highlighted the fetus remains unchanged what has moved the line is the medical knowledge to support a life that would not exist if that support was removed.

But that is not the purpose of the article being discussed. The article is furthering that point - albeit they take it the wrong way and presume that only the viability for physical self support is important and complete ignore the other aspects but then give that very luxury to the parents and society - to say we need to make a judgement on "the balance of harm" overall using all factors: physical, socio-economic, etc

In terms of decreasing NHS funding and the rationing of care it is highly likely we need to have a debate and say at what point do we say our supporting of life is "too much". And for the detractors who deem we should treat all let me ask you - would you be prepared to fund this service through extra taxation, do you think life should always be preserved even in the cases of clear suffering, and do you have any clue how difficult it is for these families, would you be willing to contribute personally to assist or adopt yourself etc because that is the discussion at hand whether you like it or not.
 
after seeing the 12 week scan of my unborn baby recently i cannot understand under ANY circumstances why abortions are legal. my little baby might be the size of a prawn, but he has finger nails and is fully developed. and doing the charity work on my local estate i have seen many a women still haunted by having a termination.
 
_Jimlad_ said:
after seeing the 12 week scan of my unborn baby recently i cannot understand under ANY circumstances why abortions are legal. my little baby might be the size of a prawn, but he has finger nails and is fully developed. and doing the charity work on my local estate i have seen many a women still haunted by having a termination.
Click to expand...

Which of course is one emotive picture put forward ... on the other hand you have the image of a neonate gasping for breath with excess cyanosis, with blood leaking from every orifice from gross DIC, not able to sufficiently move its diaphragm to even breath due to excess pain, whilst a frantic medical team do "everything they can" with a mortified family looking on at the horrors that have entered their lives ...

Both sides can spin the emotive line which is why this needs to weighed without such distractions with cold logic and fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom