after-birth abortion

[stormkroe]

Here's a tiny look at the slippery slope/progress on the abortion issue. Many of us see this as the next step in the partial birth abortion path, and I would hazard a guess that there are some people on the board who are already OK with this abomination, and some who are just waiting for one of their heroes to tell them to be OK with it.
Today's extreme is tomorrow's normal. I have expected this for a long while, along with the right to marry siblings/immediate family. Is there a point where libs and cons can agree we've went too far?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

 

[Bowfinger]

Given that the paper is about five years old (June, 2011) and there still seems to be nobody pushing to legalize after-birth abortions (not even the paper's authors), I'd say you've been suckered again. It's a non-issue, rolled out again in an election year to try to get the GOP base properly outraged.

 

[cbrunny]

Nothing better to boil the blood than fake news. Hope you got your daily fix and can move on to a real issue.

 

[brycejones]

Op is fooled again.

 

[stormkroe]

Given that the paper is about five years old (June, 2011) and there stills seems to be nobody pushing to legalize after-birth abortions (not even the paper's authors), I'd say you've been suckered again. It's a non-issue, rolled out again in an election year to try to get the GOP base properly outraged.

I'm sorry if my post looks like I'm hanging my hat on this article. It's true that it popped up in my feed and made me think about it again (working as intended, I imagine). Yes, I know the paper is old, but it's not this article that I thought we would discuss. Rather, the idea of after birth abortion. I'm simply stating that there are people who are for this, my opinion after reading years of posts here is that there are probably people on this forum who agree with the idea (it's virtually no different than partial birth abortion, and there are certainly people here who support that), and wondered if anyone would actually come out in support of it.
If it makes you or others happy to cry 'fooled', that's fine. I didn't get the memo on which topics where 'real' enough to discuss.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Since the op has already stated that any type of abortion is an "abomination, " posting the link is simply trolling because he is unwilling to discuss his own beliefs.

 

[stormkroe]

Since the op has already stated that any type of abortion is an "abomination, " posting the link is simply trolling because he is unwilling to discuss his own beliefs.

Ok, will edit the op, the abomination I was referring to was PBA (if I were talking about abortion in general I wouldn't have to hazard a guess that people here support it). I apologize for the lack of clarity, this is not a troll thread.
Also, even if my belief is that ALL abortion is an abomination that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to discuss it. Are you unwilling to discuss things that you believe? That is an illogical statement.

 

[MongGrel]

Bat baby not found.

 

[brycejones]

I find it amusing the OP is concerned the "slippery slope" in the area of abortions being some path to after birth abortions when in the US its the exact opposite. The only slippery slope we appear to be on is one to continually restrict access to and make it more difficult to obtain an abortion at any point in a pregnancy.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Ok, will edit the op, the abomination I was referring to was PBA (if I were talking about abortion in general I wouldn't have to hazard a guess that people here support it). I apologize for the lack of clarity, this is not a troll thread.
Also, even if my belief is that ALL abortion is an abomination that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to discuss it. Are you unwilling to discuss things that you believe? That is an illogical statement.

Once again, you side step the issue. What are your beliefs? You post an old article and want our reaction to it without taking a stand yourself.

 

[stormkroe]

Once again, you side step the issue. What are your beliefs? You post an old article and want our reaction to it without taking a stand yourself.

I'm not side stepping the issue. I made it clear that I think PBA (and by extension post-natal abortion) is an abomination. I asked if there was a point that was extreme enough for libs and cons could agree on it. I'm not sure how these 2 things were unclear. What is your stance on it?

 

[ivwshane]

OP, have you looked at the laws since that article was written? Have abortions become less or more restrictive? It certainly looks like more restrictions are becoming the new normal.

You've been duped and while you acknowledge that, you didn't let it affect your opinion one bit. I gotta ask; do you even care about the issue because you don't seem to be very knowledgable about an issue you are supposedly passionate about.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I'm not side stepping the issue. I made it clear that I think PBA (and by extension post-natal abortion) is an abomination. I asked if there was a point that was extreme enough for libs and cons could agree on it. I'm not sure how these 2 things were unclear. What is your stance on it?

We'll leave your inability to communicate aside and say that while I believe some people deserve to die, children do not. However, I do not view fetuses as children until they are born. Some do.

 

[stormkroe]

OP, have you looked at the laws since that article was written? Have abortions become less or more restrictive? It certainly looks like more restrictions are becoming the new normal.

You've been duped and while you acknowledge that, you didn't let it affect your opinion one bit. I gotta ask; do you even care about the issue because you don't seem to be very knowledgeable about an issue you are supposedly passionate about.

From a legal standpoint, an issue like this will always suffer from change and refinement simply because it's an all or nothing stance. As such, every little crevice and corner of the implemented laws will be nit-picked and worried.
I brought it up for discussion because I think that SOCIAL views are trending more liberal on this issue with more and more people. I think that people will become more OK with the idea of a post-natal abortion as time goes by. I'm not sure what you think has 'duped' me, or what opinion I have that was proven invalid by the alleged 'duping', or what knowledge I've claimed that is wrong.
As far as how much I care about this issue? It is number 1 on my list.
I understand the need to clarify to the first couple posters, especially my poor wording with regard to the specific act of PBA, but at this point we ha e quite a few posts and literally no one has contributed an opinion to the discussion (I suppose you suggested that abortion is more restricted now than before, but that's not the topic. Are you OK with after birth abortion is the distilled question).
If no one wants to discuss, just ignore it and it'll float to the back pages of history.

 

[stormkroe]

We'll leave your inability to communicate aside and say that while I believe some people deserve to die, children do not. However, I do not view fetuses as children until they are born. Some do.

I admitted and corrected the lack of specificity in my OP, that you missed my clearly-stated stance and subsequent question is on you.
When you say that some people deserve to die, are you speaking about capital punishment? And just to clarify, you believe fetuses (feti?) are children after they're born, you consider a 42 week human viable for abortion during delivery, as they don't fulfill the requirement of 'born' yet? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Thanks for giving a stance btw.

 

[motsm]

Serious question, if you're pro choice as we know it today, what makes you against this after birth abortion? In other words, what logically makes one OK, but not the other?

Not a troll question, as much as it sounds like one, I am just rolling the idea around in my head, and not coming up with much.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Both my belief that some people deserve to die and my stance on abortion have little if anything to do with the legal system. My views on abortion have nothing to do with the fetus and everything to do with a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. The right I speak of again has nothing to do with legal rights.

 

[ivwshane]

From a legal standpoint, an issue like this will always suffer from change and refinement simply because it's an all or nothing stance. As such, every little crevice and corner of the implemented laws will be nit-picked and worried.
I brought it up for discussion because I think that SOCIAL views are trending more liberal on this issue with more and more people. I think that people will become more OK with the idea of a post-natal abortion as time goes by. I'm not sure what you think has 'duped' me, or what opinion I have that was proven invalid by the alleged 'duping', or what knowledge I've claimed that is wrong.
As far as how much I care about this issue? It is number 1 on my list.
I understand the need to clarify to the first couple posters, especially my poor wording with regard to the specific act of PBA, but at this point we ha e quite a few posts and literally no one has contributed an opinion to the discussion (I suppose you suggested that abortion is more restricted now than before, but that's not the topic. Are you OK with after birth abortion is the distilled question).
If no one wants to discuss, just ignore it and it'll float to the back pages of history.

It's the number 1 issue on your list? Why? Are you an authoritarian? Do you like to involve yourself in other people's most personal and consequential choices?

As for me, I'm pro choice and my opinion on the issue doesn't mean shit. The choice should be between a woman and her doctor. That being said, I'd love to see abortions be used less often which is why I support sex education, family planning education, and free birth control for women and men. But I'm a "let's address the issue and not the symptoms kind of guy".

Do I have a problem with late term abortions? They happen so rarely that it's not something that I think we as a scociety should be concerned with and any women who wants to have a late term a abortion who isn't having it for medical reasons (mothers health, birth defects, etc) probably isn't mentally stable enough to have a child in the first place.

 

[stormkroe]

It's the number 1 issue on your list? Why? Are you an authoritarian? Do you like to involve yourself in other people's most personal and consequential choices?

As for me, I'm pro choice and my opinion on the issue doesn't mean shit. The choice should be between a woman and her doctor. That being said, I'd love to see abortions be used left often which is why I support sex education, family planning education, and free birth control for women and men. But I'm a "let's address the issue and not the symptoms kind of guy".

Do I have a problem with late term abortions? They happen so rarely that it's not something that I think we as a scociety should be concerned with and any women who wants to have a late term a abortion who isn't having it for medical reasons (mothers health, birth defects, etc) probably isn't mentally stable enough to have a child in the first place.

I'm not an authoritarian by any means, my views on the rights of all people create moments in church that I feel you would love to watch.
The best way to describe it would be to start from our (assumed) common ground. I don't believe a person should be able to kill a 10 year old in order to avoid the inconveniences of a pregnancy. I assume we would share that view for 4, 3, 2, or 1 year old children. My OPINION is that this 'life trumps convenience' right should extend back earlier than you do.
Great post btw, hopefully more people follow your example.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not an authoritarian by any means, my views on the rights of all people create moments in church that I feel you would love to watch.
The best way to describe it would be to start from our (assumed) common ground. I don't believe a person should be able to kill a 10 year old in order to avoid the inconveniences of a pregnancy. I assume we would share that view for 4, 3, 2, or 1 year old children. My OPINION is that this 'life trumps convenience' right should extend back earlier than you do.
Great post btw, hopefully more people follow your example.

You aren't an authoritarian but you think people should be inconvenienced by your beliefs?

 

[buckshot24]

Serious question, if you're pro choice as we know it today, what makes you against this after birth abortion? In other words, what logically makes one OK, but not the other?

Not a troll question, as much as it sounds like one, I am just rolling the idea around in my head, and not coming up with much.

Out of sight, out of mind.

 

[stormkroe]

You aren't an authoritarian but you think people should be inconvenienced by your beliefs?

No, I just don't think people should be dead for yours. I have no problem seeing your side of this, our feelings are very similar. I'm applying them to the unborn child's life instead of the woman's convenience. You don't have to agree, but can you understand that viewpoint?

 

[alien42]

Today's extreme is tomorrow's normal. I have expected this for a long while, along with the right to marry siblings/immediate family. Is there a point where libs and cons can agree we've went too far?

I don't believe a person should be able to kill a 10 year old in order to avoid the inconveniences of a pregnancy.

i recommend you seek professional medical help, the very fact that you are thinking about sibling marriage and the murder of 10 year olds is rather scarry.

 

[stormkroe]

i recommend you seek professional medical help, the very fact that you are thinking about sibling marriage and the murder of 10 year olds is rather scarry.

If you think bringing up incestuous marriage requires professional help, how do you feel about those who support it? Welcome to atpn, perhaps you've heard of it? http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2306047&highlight=

Also, in your opinion, how young does a child have to be to morally murdered?

 

[ivwshane]

No, I just don't think people should be dead for yours. I have no problem seeing your side of this, our feelings are very similar. I'm applying them to the unborn child's life instead of the woman's convenience. You don't have to agree, but can you understand that viewpoint?

Yeah, I understand your viewpoint, I think I've summarized it nicely, you just don't want to acknowledge it.
Avoiding your own death is not a matter of convenience, making sure a child doesn't grow up suffering from a defect isn't a convenience, it's a hard, emotional decision that doesn't need your input.

Until pro lifers start adopting children (roughly 100,000 currently awaiting for adoption), or they start paying to help raise the child from birth to 18 (if the child is healthy) or for the rest of the Childs life, pro lifers can keep their opinions to themselves. If you truly cared about the "inconvenience" of having a child you would be doing more to support policies that prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. What have you done in that respect?