Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Apparently abortion is synonymous with killing babies - which makes killing babies ok.

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Ljiljan, Mar 2, 2012.

  1. This world makes me sick


    Philosophers' claim over moral right to kill newborns sparks outrage

    Funny thing is, one would have though putting abortion on the same level as infacticide would have put abortion wholly in the "not a good idea" category instead of the other way around, but no. Truth is, he's absolutely right, there really is no difference between killing a new born and abortion, the "potential human" status is one we justify so we can happily continue our socially accepted murder without any conscience pangs because people are unable to live with consequences of their actions.
  2. Logic is a wonderful thing and especially fun when you extend from a warped opinion or without fact, it can almost seem credible. But it should always be taken as an intellectual exercise and nothing more.
  3. No he's not right at all a fetus is not yet a fully formed human whereas a third stage pregnancy child is. Abortion for medical, physiological reasons or r.ape are ok in my books but abortion for convenience is not, especially in these days of contraception.
  4. Smee, why distinguish between a human foetus and a human in a different stage of pregnancy? And, following the theme of the article, what's the difference between a medical reason for abortion pre-birth and post-birth? Or do you mean a medical reason on the mothers side?
  5. Yay a thread with men debating abortion
  6. If "potential human" is the guideline, then most guys would be considered mass murderers :jerk:
  7. So what's your definition of human? And if it doesn't include sentience as a criterion (and this needs to be defined too), how is it better?
  8. As far as i'm aware babies don't have a change of species in utero.
  9. As far as I see it, a fetus is a pre-developed baby and a baby is a pre-developed adult. Both are humans................................Ive always said that these will be a slippery slope.
  10. I don't agree with the article.
    A fetus in the first stage is not yet a human, it is developing into one and the chance of things that can go wrong are very high.
    (three miscarriages can attest to that)

    Medical reasons are varied but yes the mother and a severely deformed child are resons for PRE birth termination in the first or early second trimester.
    post birth termination is barbaric.
  11. An interesting view. I'm a fence sitter - but logic dictates that the authors aren't necessarily completely out of the ball park.

    I'd need to read A LOT more views to come up with an educated opinion on the issue.

    I can see the authors point.

    Don't some cultures consider newborns as "not a person" until some later time?

    The world (and the graduation from single cell to Rossi) is one infinitesimally detailed gradient of black to white.
  12. And so says the Roman Catholic church.
  13. Some tribes in the Amazon basin regularly practice infanticide, for a variety of reasons, mostly ruthless practicality.
    The Romans did not consider an infant to be 'human' until it's first birthday.
  14. It's just not something you can draw a black and white line on.
    There is no point you can mark and say before this it's isn't a life and after this it is.

    It's always going to be a grey area trying to strike a balance between rights of the mother versus rights of the unborn child. Which means no matter what the decision, somebody will always think it was wrong.
  15. And they certainly have first hand experience with mass murder
  16. Because the cut off period for abortion is currently based on the age at which prematurely delivered infants are able to survive.

    Mother's choice FTW
  17. I believe so (30 days springs to mind for some cultures), but would that be to allow infanticide or a way of coping with high infant mortality?

    The paper's argument falls over in that the survival of newborn is not exclusively dependant on the care provided by its mother. That is, another caregiver or caregivers can provide the necessary support.

    False dichotomy. The interests of a mother in this case can be served by offering the child for adoption at birth, without detriment to the baby's claims.
  18. The philosophers kind of miss how the context changes once a baby is out and there are non medical things to be done by parents who don't want them.

    Part of do no harm is to do the non medical/intrusive thing first, so even if you don't think infanticide is any worse you to take the 'give it away' option once it opens up. Rendering the comparison moot! :p
  19. How can you include sentience as a criterion* without a potentiality or historical clause, and not exclude the comatose, the unconscious and the horribly drunk?

    *ah, correct use of the word "criterion". A sure sign of a dangerous mind...