The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on March 01, 2012, 07:21:06 AM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002365690#post5
Oh my.
The Straight Story (37,334 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
“After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?â€
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons†and do not have a “moral right to lifeâ€. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal societyâ€.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?â€, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “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.â€
...
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 disabledâ€.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
Words fail me.
LiberalLoner (3,452 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
1. I am sure this is just another attack on abortion, thinly disguised.
Actually, no.
It's right in line with primitive philosophy.
hlthe2b (39,194 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
2. Exactly... Posit the most extreme viewpoint as "acceptable" (which would clearly be unacceptable...
by nearly all) and thus use that to suggest Pro-Choice advocates totally devalue life.
Abortion enthusiasts don't?
Zalatix (1,924 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
13. Anyone recall James Watson?
Because of the present limits of such detection methods, most birth defects are not discovered until birth. If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice...the doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering.
James Watson "Children from the Laboratory," AMA Prism, May 1973 issue, Chapter 3, page 2
Odin2005 (41,540 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
15. No, this is the logical end-point of Utilitarian "ethics".
Peter Singer, the late Australian ethicist and animal rights activist, believed something similar. That's right, he thought livestock should have more rights than newborns!
Well, wasn't that shown in one of the referenda in California a few years ago?
California primitives obviously believe chickens have more rights than human infants.
So.....what's the point?
TheWraith (22,672 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
19. Possibly, but some people genuinely believe this.
They have, fortunately, been kept well under wraps by the social stigma associated with anything that smacks of eugenics, but they're still out there.
No way.
Surely you kid.
Margaret Sanger and the Planned Parenthoodlums have been kept under wraps?
unblock (21,159 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
7. i remember reading this philosophy in a college morals and ethics course decades ago.
the argument goes that you're not a "person" until you're a moral agent, capable of making moral decisions and actions yourself. so until you're at least a toddler, you don't have the full rights, such as life and liberty, that full "persons" do.
not many people buy into this, but the key point i recall was that this ignores the very real difference in status between fetus and infant. the fetus is inside and attached to a woman, who is a "person" and who has rights, whereas an infant is dependant on others but not physically inside and attached to anyone in particular.
consquently, a woman may have a right to "evict" the fetus, which might necessarily result in the fetus's death because there is no other way to "evict" the fetus. by contrast, not only is there no need for "eviction" in the case of an infant, its dependency is transferrable -- if you can't take care of it, you can put it up for adoption. there's no scenario where death can't be avoided.
WillowTree (1,859 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
9. This is the most horrifying thing I've read in a long, long time.
Oh now, the willow primitive must not read Skins's island on a daily basis, then.
Vattel (2,749 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
10. I'm glad the authors are getting attacked.
There is no basis for supposing that having a right to life depends on having language, or being autonomous, or being able to think circles around a dog, or anything like that.
saras (5,228 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
11. Sometimes it shouldn't. Most societies, pre-abortion, agreed. Ugly but sometimes neccesary.
America has gotten bizarrely fanatical in our selective application of idealistic principles to an extremely un-idealistic reality.
Quite frankly, I don't have a problem with their logic, or their conclusions. I think they are well reasoned, quite legitimate, and though I may (or may not) disagree I can see the possibility of sensible debate with them, which I don't see with the anti-abortion terrorists.
THEY are uninterested in logic, facts, debate, rights, the opinions of others, or, as far as I can tell, USING abortion as an EXCUSE to create policies to harm people for their own pleasures.
Quite frankly I encounter ADULTS who don't seem to have enough functioning upstairs to be considered "human", or be able to interact in a human manner with others. They seem to have no grasp that language means anything, for example, but use it as noises you make to get people to do things. They have no grasp that their entire universe of opinion is trivial when set against that of an entire culture, especially one different than theirs. They have no sense of cause and effect, of the idea that the physical world obeys reasonable and somewhat predictable laws, or that actions have consequences independent of the wishes and desires of the actor, that the actor is responsible for. And they think the entire world is obliged to serve them in their ignorance, because they in turn are willing to serve some authority or other.
Whoa. franksolich is compelled to interrupt the saras primitive.
Damn.
That's an excellent description of the primitives.
In fact, one of the best I've ever seen.
I would be quite willing, for academic purposes, to make an argument that humanity shouldn't waste resources on them, because they are not merely useless, but actively harmful to all humanity.
So I suspect a reasonable position is somewhere in the middle, and not way over on the anti-abortion fanatical extreme.
What do I mean by "fanatical extreme?" The idea that YOUR ill-informed (or well-informed, for that matter) opinions about abortion have ANY PLACE WHATSOEVER between a woman and her FREELY CHOSEN health care provider. None. Nope. None at all.
And if you want to argue that, start with the idea that our definition of murder is largely arbitrary, made for the convenience of the legal system in approaching the sort of complexity desired by humans. And argue why you want to include abortion in this arbitrary definition when most of the civilized world does not.
Odin2005 (41,540 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
14. "if it turns out to be disabled when it is born." I think I'm gonna be sick!
Eugenicist monster! the death threats are well deserved.
Ecumenist (4,132 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
17. Is this what it seems to me, an extreme point that is posited to rile up the anti-abortion crowd? This seems too extreme to be real. If a child is born alive, why the **** would someone MURDER that child? That isn't a action of Abortion that's out and out MURDER. BIG DIFFERENCE, Fellas! Death threats are the least you deserve. This is ugly as homemade sin. I don't know what to say...
hyphenate (12,365 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
18. This is a clinical article
It doesn't deal with societal mores, nor does it rely on the opinion of the people who might find themselves in a situation that required a decision in such a matter.
From a strictly scientific viewpoint, it would seem that they are correct--but it is never that clear-cut, nor is it ever that simple.
zorahopkins (1,274 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
20. I Would Quibble With The Term "After-Birth Abortion"
The term "after-birth abortion" is, as others have pointed out, nothing more than an attempt to push a hot button.
But, putting aside the term, I don't really see anything wrong here.
Why is it, exactly, that an infant, who cannot survive on its own, should be considered an individual?
iemitsu (565 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
27. i prefer the term post-natal abortion.
sounds softer.
nadinbrzezinski (102,070 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
23. Spartans used to do this with obviously deformed new borns
other societies have done this as well.
The origin of this is actually in GREECE from the POV of the ethics at play.
Oh and yes, before somebody screams about Judeo Christian, this is believed to have been a common practice across the levant, that includes ancient Israel
Honeycombe8 (9,471 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
24. If this is for real, there is a very real difference between infants and fetuses.
At some point in the womb, it has been determined by the legal system in the U.S. that the fetus has become a person when it is able to survive outside the womb. Once that point has been reached, the fetus is a person, and as such, his/her life cannot be ended or it is murder.
The partial birth abortions are an exception that is allowed past the point only in cases where: the fetus would die soon after birth AND the mother's health or life is in jeopardy because of the pregnancy and a doctor has determined that an abortion would relieve that risk.
Once a baby has been born, it is a person, and the mother's health or life is not in jeopardy. So it would be murder, pure and simple, to kill a baby.
This smacks of what Hitler's regime did. The disabled, retarded, etc., were not worthy to live. (Is "retarded" the correct term these days? Or is there another term being used? I don't mean to offend, but I can't recall that point.)
alphafemale (11,798 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
25. Parents have a right to forgo "heroic measures" in a newborn or preborn with devastating problems
To keep flailing on some is more cruel than letting them die peacefully.
rebecca_herman (502 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
28. There's a difference though
At least I feel there is a difference between deciding against painful, invasive treatment when the odds of survival with any quality of life at all, or even the odds of surviving at all in any condition, are poor, and actually actively killing someone. It's perfectly legal to decide against treatment when the odds are very poor. It's not
legal to then shoot the person in the head after deciding that.
LeftishBrit (24,910 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
29. This is a couple of ambitious academics seeking attention
View profile
And getting it.
I doubt that they actually believe all this for a moment, but it's a way of stimulating discussion and provoking thought, as they would put it, and getting lots of publicity and citations, as a cynic might put it.
These days, it's not just 'publish or perish'; it's often 'get your work cited widely or perish', and these individuals are certainly going to achieve their goal.
Unfortunately, they are playing into the hands of those who would like to portray all pro-choice people as 'baby killers'. The Daily Telegraph, which was always the Torygraph, has in the last few years been taken over by people more akin to the American Christian Right, and have an anti-abortion obsession; so I am not surprised that they are jumping on to this.
Dorian Gray (7,010 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
30. This has got to be some crazy social statement. There is no way anybody can believe this.
I don't think so.
When it comes down to brass tacks, I think the primitives do.
-
Honeycombe8
24. If this is for real, there is a very real difference between infants and fetuses.
Depending on the time, name them.
-
unblock (21,159 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
7. i remember reading this philosophy in a college morals and ethics course decades ago.
the argument goes that you're not a "person" until you're a moral agent, capable of making moral decisions and actions yourself. so until you're at least a toddler, you don't have the full rights, such as life and liberty, that full "persons" do.
And now you know why liberals are so quick to label all opposition as psychopathic capitalists, psychologically co-dependent religionists and sociopathic survivalists.
As soon as they ascribe a psychological dysfunction to you they can say you are what you are because you lack full mental moral capacity and as soon as you lack moral capacity they are morally free to kill you.
Some may say I'm overreacting and making slippery slope arguments but history from the Nazis to the Soviets to Margaret Sanger, Peter Singer and the article cited in the OP prove me right.
Case in point:
saras (5,228 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
11. Sometimes it shouldn't. Most societies, pre-abortion, agreed. Ugly but sometimes neccesary.
America has gotten bizarrely fanatical in our selective application of idealistic principles to an extremely un-idealistic reality.
Quite frankly, I don't have a problem with their logic, or their conclusions. I think they are well reasoned, quite legitimate, and though I may (or may not) disagree I can see the possibility of sensible debate with them, which I don't see with the anti-abortion terrorists.
THEY are uninterested in logic, facts, debate, rights, the opinions of others, or, as far as I can tell, USING abortion as an EXCUSE to create policies to harm people for their own pleasures.
Quite frankly I encounter ADULTS who don't seem to have enough functioning upstairs to be considered "human", or be able to interact in a human manner with others. They seem to have no grasp that language means anything, for example, but use it as noises you make to get people to do things. They have no grasp that their entire universe of opinion is trivial when set against that of an entire culture, especially one different than theirs. They have no sense of cause and effect, of the idea that the physical world obeys reasonable and somewhat predictable laws, or that actions have consequences independent of the wishes and desires of the actor, that the actor is responsible for. And they think the entire world is obliged to serve them in their ignorance, because they in turn are willing to serve some authority or other.
So, in other words: anyone not living the life of the idle philosopher is fair game for extermination.
Notice how not only is the post self-exonerating it is also self-congratulating. Oh course she's exempt; she's perfect in her own mind.
By the way...
...
"saras" is the semitic root word for sin as typified by the blindness, rot and decay of leprosy, which itself is a deadening of the nerves that allow people to feel. ecause the afflicted cannot feel they injure themselves and make no effort to guard or heal their injuries so infection sets in.
I doubt she intended it that way but many times there's a thin line between coincidence and Providence.
Honeycombe8
24. If this is for real, there is a very real difference between infants and fetuses.
Partial birth, late-term abortion mean anything to you?
-
I do think that article made me sick.
-
Of course, those who argued that any legalisation of abortion would produce a slippery slope towards the utter devaluation of human life were just exagerating...
The 'ethicists' in question are merely carrying their position about the inhumanity of unborn children to its logical next step (I certainly don't see this as the end of the campaign of death).
-
If the pool of candidates could be limited to DUmmies, KOStards, gangbangers, and its own adherents, the idea might have some merit.
:censored:
-
Of course, those who argued that any legalisation of abortion would produce a slippery slope towards the utter devaluation of human life were just exaggerating...
The 'ethicists' in question are merely carrying their position about the inhumanity of unborn children to its logical next step (I certainly don't see this as the end of the campaign of death).
Back in 1938, a Republican congressman from Nebraska, Carl Curtis, arose on the floor of the House to protest some new New Deal tax, saying that "sooner or later, we'll be taking 10% of everybody's income."
He was assailed as an alarmist, exaggerating things, alleging that something that could not possibly happen, would happen.
I wish I could remember which magazine it was--all I remember is it was a leftist magazine--I read in college where it was stated, "alarmists are always right."
-
I am ill and numb.
-
4/1/2012 is opening day for liberal after birth abortions.
-
IIRC , there was plenty of hatred directed towards Sarah Palin for bringing Trig into this world.
-
It was good to hear from a semi-literate, but trained, historian that killing imperfect individuals after birth is routine, just trivial old hat.
So one must question why DUmmies can't understand support for the 203rd trimester abortion of Killer Tiller.
-
The DUches are truly evil. I'm beginning to think that there can be no accommodating the Liberal regressives. This is not going to end amicably. Most likely a regressive will start something by killing innocents and then it will be on. I truly believe this is what 0bama and the democrat party are attempting to do. The party has been cranking up the volume and winking to their brown-shirts about violence on conservatives. Somehow the regressives think they will end up on the winning side so are salivating for the fight. It will not end well for them.
-
The DUches are truly evil. I'm beginning to think that there can be no accommodating the Liberal regressives. This is not going to end amicably. Most likely a regressive will start something by killing innocents and then it will be on.
Once that door is opened, there aren't really any limits.
-
Ecumenist (4,132 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
17. Is this what it seems to me, an extreme point that is posited to rile up the anti-abortion crowd? This seems too extreme to be real. If a child is born alive, why the **** would someone MURDER that child? That isn't an action of Abortion that's out and out MURDER. BIG DIFFERENCE, Fellas! Death threats are the least you deserve. This is ugly as homemade sin. I don't know what to say...
Uh, hey DUmbass! Maybe ya ought to read up on the bill O'Bummer shoved thru the Illinois legislature that does exactly that!!!
Boy, you pricks sure are well informed, ain't ya?
-
There will be a call to arms over this measure if it becomes legal.
Then this:
nadinbrzezinski (102,070 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
23. Spartans used to do this with obviously deformed new borns
It appears that Nadin watched the first 5 minutes of the movie "300".
-
I can think of a whole bunch of 80-180 trimester abortions that would make the world a far far better place.
-
News
Print Article | Email Friend | Reprint Permissions
Obama Cover-up Revealed On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill
by LifeSiteNews.com
Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:15 EST
Comments (0)
Commentary by NRLC
August 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - New documents just obtained by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) prove that Senator Obama has for the past four years blatantly misrepresented his actions on the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection bill.
Douglas Johnson, NRLC spokesman, explains: "Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language…explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion."
Wonder how it feels to have your hero defend murder?
(edited to ad link)
more info......
Murderin' Bastard! (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08081101)
-
Dear Stinky, clam killing dude,
Please remind your fellow DUmmies that Lord 0bama himself supports infanticide should a baby be brave and strong enough to survive an abortion.
In fact, I think that was his only major legislative accomplishment, pre-presidency.
-
This thread made me so ill, and I was crying too hard to bring it over. Thank you Frank. I have simply run out of superlatives to describe these cretins.
-
iemitsu (565 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
27. i prefer the term post-natal abortion.
sounds softer.
Oh surely you can come up with a kinder, gentler euphemism?
Cindie
-
This thread made me so ill, and I was crying too hard to bring it over. Thank you Frank. I have simply run out of superlatives to describe these cretins.
Don't worry Syb, we gotcher back!
-
I do think that article made me sick.
I know it made me sick. Murder is murder, inside or outside of the womb however, and these assholes all make me ill. :fuelfire:
-
There will be a call to arms over this measure if it becomes legal.
Then this:
It appears that Nadin watched the first 5 minutes of the movie "300".
:lmao:
There is absolutely no research that backs up killing deformed children in Sparta.
-
BTW,
nadinbrzezinski
23. Spartans used to do this with obviously deformed new borns
other societies have done this as well.
The origin of this is actually in GREECE from the POV of the ethics at play.
Oh and yes, before somebody screams about Judeo Christian, this is believed to have been a common practice across the levant, that includes ancient Israel
Wrong, you ignorant slut.
-
:lmao:
There is absolutely no research that backs up killing deformed children in Sparta.
Like I said, it appears that Nadin watched the first 5 minutes of the movie "300".
I remember a "Leave it to Beaver" episode where the Beeve had to write a book report on "The Three Musketeers". Instead of reading the book, he watched a comedy version with Dan Ameche on the TV. He did the book report on the TV movie and not the book.
50 years later, DUmmies are still doing the same thing.