after-birth abortion

[sandorski]

This thread is supposed to be about after-birth abortion. It's not part of the discussion because ???? something. There will be/are people advocating for it, some for medical reasons, some for others (see the medical journal link I provided earlier). I wouldn't be surprised if there are some posters here who already support it.
I appears accurate to say that you, personally, are against the killing of a born-baby?

Euthanasia is a more accurate term for that.

 

[Vic]

Should a woman be able to abort her child 1 day before her due date? If yes, then what is the material difference between 1 day before and 1 day after?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

"As the word is used in United States constitutional law since Roe v. Wade, viability is the potential of the fetus to survive outside the uterus after birth, natural or induced, when supported by up-to-date medicine.
According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive.[4] It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 g (17.6 ounces) to survive.[1] A baby's chances for survival increases 3-4% per day between 23 and 24 weeks of gestation and about 2-3% per day between 24 and 26 weeks of gestation. After 26 weeks the rate of survival increases at a much slower rate because survival is high already.[5]"

 

[buckshot24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

"As the word is used in United States constitutional law since Roe v. Wade, viability is the potential of the fetus to survive outside the uterus after birth, natural or induced, when supported by up-to-date medicine.
According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive.[4] It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 g (17.6 ounces) to survive.[1] A baby's chances for survival increases 3-4% per day between 23 and 24 weeks of gestation and about 2-3% per day between 24 and 26 weeks of gestation. After 26 weeks the rate of survival increases at a much slower rate because survival is high already.[5]"

I apologize, I misread the first comment I quoted of yours. I totally missed what you said about viability.

I do wonder, however, what percentage survivability do you consider "viable"?

 

[Vic]

This thread is supposed to be about after-birth abortion. It's not part of the discussion because ???? something. There will be/are people advocating for it, some for medical reasons, some for others (see the medical journal link I provided earlier). I wouldn't be surprised if there are some posters here who already support it.
I appears accurate to say that you, personally, are against the killing of a born-baby?

I am against aborting or killing any fetus or baby past the point of viability.
Your slippery slope is a fallacy. The right of a woman to have an abortion isn't about convenience or when life begins, but the right of a woman to own property. Because, under our system of common law, property rights are inherent from self-ownership.

 

[stormkroe]

Euthanasia is a more accurate term for that.

Agreed. I think that placing the OP issue into that category might reveal to some people that there already is some support for it.

 

[stormkroe]

I am against aborting or killing any fetus or baby past the point of viability.
Your slippery slope is a fallacy. The right of a woman to have an abortion isn't about convenience or when life begins, but the right of a woman to own property. Because, under our system of common law, property rights are inherent from self-ownership.

Thanks for the clear statement of belief.
I acknowledge your first point, I used abortions of convenience as an extreme and to cut down on variables in the discussion. I agree with you about a woman's right to her own body. The question I have for you now that you've answered the last one is, what if the woman is the baby? Do you feel that a baby girl has a right to life trumping the mother's right to convenience (again, using convenience as the extreme and only reason in this particular discussion) at viability or only after the baby is born? I know that some people believe the woman shouldn't have to support a foreign person in their body, but the foreign person is the only guaranteed innocent in the issue of every kind of pregnancy (not asking to be there).
As a pro-lifer (even though I apparently still have 100,000 more kids to adopt to prove it), I can honestly understand a pro-choice belief of the right to life starting at viability. However, waiting until a full-term birth doesn't make sense to me.
Thanks again Vic

 

[buckshot24]

I am against aborting or killing any fetus or baby past the point of viability.
Your slippery slope is a fallacy. The right of a woman to have an abortion isn't about convenience or when life begins, but the right of a woman to own property. Because, under our system of common law, property rights are inherent from self-ownership.

Are you for making it illegal to abort after the point of viability (whenever that may be)?

 

[Paratus]

Are you for making it illegal to abort after the point of viability (whenever that may be)?

No.

The fetuses right to life is never absolute over the mothers. So no it wouldn't be illegal after viability.

 

[Bubbleawsome]

Lol this thread

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You're the first person requesting clarification on the distinctions Paratus and I were making, I am willing to adjust my terminology to a more accurate word

I didn't request anything. The definitions of "human being," "person," "child," and "individual" are firmly established in US law, so if you want to talk about what the law should be with respect to human beings, persons, children and individuals, you better damn well understand what those terms mean to the law.

(is it 'natural person' you're looking for?)

I only stipulated "natural person" to differentiate it from a "corporate person." You see, apparently corporations are people, too, my friend.

Your ultimatums show that you are too ignorant to decipher acceptable word-meanings from context

This is just your lame attempt to justify your own sloppy usage. If you want people to take your claims seriously, then they need to come correct.

or you have a near pathological need to look like an intellectual hipster to strangers on the internet, so choose your side.

It isn't my problem that you haven't a sufficiently rigorous concern for the truth. This isn't rocket surgery. Learn to speak like you have an education, or go out and fucking get one.

Oh P&N, you never change.

It will never change as long as it's populated by ignoramuses like yourself.

 

[buckshot24]

No.

The fetuses right to life is never absolute over the mothers. So no it wouldn't be illegal after viability.

I wasn't asking you but thanks. So 1 day before the due date, the mother could get cold feet and elect for an abortion even though the baby is completely "viable"?

What if the baby was born prematurely? Let's say a month. The baby is less developed than a "fetus" who is due in 1 day. What material difference is there between the two, why should one be protected and the other not?

 

[buckshot24]

It will never change as long as it's populated by ignoramuses like yourself.

The problem with this place is blowhards like you who enjoy insulting people from the safety of your keyboard. I still believe that you're a pencil necked twerp who feels empowered by the interwebs to act tough in your cyber life because you can't in your real life. I'm sorry you've been bullied, but don't take it out on the rest of us.

I'll be in San Francisco in a couple months, maybe you can come down and tell me in my face how stupid I am?

 

[ivwshane]

The problem with this place is blowhards like you who enjoy insulting people from the safety of your keyboard. I still believe that you're a pencil necked twerp who feels empowered by the interwebs to act tough in your cyber life because you can't in your real life. I'm sorry you've been bullied, but don't take it out on the rest of us.

I'll be in San Francisco in a couple months, maybe you can come down and tell me in my face how stupid I am?

Speaking of internet tough guys!

 

[buckshot24]

Speaking of internet tough guys!

Isn't he though?

 

[soulcougher73]

Isn't he though?

Gif only replies are not allowed in P&N.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[bshole]

I wasn't asking you but thanks. So 1 day before the due date, the mother could get cold feet and elect for an abortion even though the baby is completely "viable"?

Is that a moral question or legal question? Most people would consider it immoral to abort a fetus that was viable unless the mother's life was at risk. Many people would consider it moral to abort a fetus even at that late date if major medical problems with the fetus were discovered after viability. Real life is lot more grey than black and white. Learn nuance. Study it. Understand it. You are the least nuanced human being I have ever encountered in my entire life.

 

[buckshot24]

Is that a moral question or legal question? Most people would consider it immoral to abort a fetus that was viable unless the mother's life was at risk. Many people would consider it moral to abort a fetus even at that late date if major medical problems with the fetus were discovered after viability. Real life is lot more grey than black and white. Learn nuance. Study it. Understand it. You are the least nuanced human being I have ever encountered in my entire life.

I'm honored. Do you have an answer or did you just want to make personal comments? Also have you come down from your utterly disgusting position that a child should die if their parents make a mistake yet?

 

[ivwshane]

I'm honored. Do you have an answer or did you just want to make personal comments? Also have you come down from your utterly disgusting position that a child should die if their parents make a mistake yet?

You shouldn't be honored, you should be embarrassed.

 

[Atreus21]

Quoting myself:

"I have no answer to what can only be considered a 'straw' situation. It's a medically regulated procedure. Figure out the rest for yourself. Hint: only 0.4% of Canadian abortions are performed after the 20 week mark.

Edit: And yes, I am in agreement with the way abortion is dealt with in Canada. That being, as a medical issue that is between a woman and her doctor(s)."

Translation: you're ducking the question.

Shrug.

 

[MajinCry]

I thought this thread was going to be about war, judging from the title.

Nah, still seems like we're at step 2 of this abortion bedlam.

 

[MajinCry]

Translation: I'm ducking the question.

Shrug.

No, he answered the question. Didn't you read what he posted?

Originally Posted by Victorian Gray
Quoting myself:

"I have no answer to what can only be considered a 'straw' situation. It's a medically regulated procedure. Figure out the rest for yourself. Hint: only 0.4% of Canadian abortions are performed after the 20 week mark.

Edit: And yes, I am in agreement with the way abortion is dealt with in Canada. That being, as a medical issue that is between a woman and her doctor(s)."

I made the relevant words bigger, in case you're sitting ten meters away from the computer.

 

[bshole]

I'm honored. Do you have an answer or did you just want to make personal comments? Also have you come down from your utterly disgusting position that a child should die if their parents make a mistake yet?

Um.... right. It is all black and white there isn't it? Lets see what the Bible has to say:

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16

Let me get this straight, it is ok killing BORN BABIES and UNBORN FETUSES if God tells you to do it. Given that, one merely has to say that God told them to kill their baby. Ammarite? Why is it utterly disgusting to perform an action without reference to god and utterly acceptable to perform the exact same action if you are deluded into believing God told you to do it? How in the hell do you get any kind of coherent moral code from divine command theory? From divine command theory, ANYTHING can be justified while using God as an excuse.

You ignore 90% of the Biblical injunctions outright. You don't stone your neighbor's ox to death if it gores somebody, you do not stone your neighbor if he works on the sabbath, you mix fabrics, you eat shellfish, you do not support slavery, you do not drink poison as evidence of your faith, you do not speak in tongues as evidence of your faith, etc.... Basically you are down to hating/oppressing anybody outside your group (especially gays) using the Bible as your justification. It is frankly bizarre that I once drank the same kool-aid. The narcissistic need for immortality is impossible to overcome for many religious believers, it was an epic struggle for myself.

Here is what the famous Christian apologist William Lane Craig has to say:

“So the only moral question that seems to me to remain, and it is difficult, is the children.” “How could God order the children of these Canaanite tribes to be destroyed? Rather than saying ‘Well you shall adopt the children, spare the children, adopt them, allow them to grow up amongst yourselves and to be part of your nation.’ And my answer to that is, I think the correct one, is that God as the author and giver of life has the authority to give and take life as he chooses fit [?] and for many children we know dying in infancy God doesn’t allow them to have a full and normal adult life; he takes them home to himself when they’re young, when they’re children. And so God has the right to take the lives of these Canaanite children should he so will.

“And I think that the reason that God willed their destruction is that he knew that if these children were allowed to live and to grow up in the context of Jewish society, this would have a corrupting influence upon the Jewish state, leading it to apostasize and fall away from the true God, the God of Israel, and to follow false gods of Canaan and other pagan nations. And in fact we know that this was true because that’s exactly what happened. The people did not carry out faithfully God’s commands to annihilate all the people. They did allow their sons and daughters to be given in marriage to some of these Canaanite young people and it did have a corrupting effect upon Israel leading to apostasy and falling away from God; and thus in one sense a much greater tragedy in terms of eternal values than what would have happened had the children all been destroyed. What we need to keep in mind is that by having the children destroyed I believe these children went immediately to heaven because people who die in infancy before they reach an age of accountability are to be saved.”

He says that all aborted fetuses go to HEAVEN. Their first conscious thought occurs IN HEAVEN! And you have the balls to say that is disgusting? WTF? W/O abortion SAVING them, the vast majority of those fetuses would end up living a miserable life on earth followed by an ETERNITY IN HELL! IF you really want to save souls from eternal torment, you would support abortion. Why do you support putting them into a lottery that could end up in eternal torment?

 

[buckshot24]

You shouldn't be honored, you should be embarrassed.

Goodbye.

 

[lopri]

Ironically, "after-birth abortion" is something that conservative/libertarian should support because what it really does is simply leaving the newborn in his/her own device until his/her demise. There is no "killing" involved there. Humans tend not to do very well by themselves when they are just born.

 

[buckshot24]

Um.... right. It is all black and white there isn't it? Lets see what the Bible has to say:

Unfortunately for you none of this diatribe makes anything you said about that gorilla and the kid any less disgusting. If a parent makes a mistake then their kids not only deserve to die but they should die.

Let me get this straight, it is ok killing BORN BABIES and UNBORN FETUSES if God tells you to do it.

What does this have to do with you crying that this kid's parents dna are still in the gene pool? You believe we are nothing more than meat machines and you act like we're more than that. Your moral outrage is worth about as much as what I flushed down the toilet.

Given that, one merely has to say that God told them to kill their baby. Ammarite?

You can say what you want. Doesn't change anything.

Why is it utterly disgusting to perform an action without reference to god and utterly acceptable to perform the exact same action if you are deluded into believing God told you to do it?

This is a pretty loaded question. haha. You seem to agree that the killing of children is "utterly disgusting" but you justify your blood lust because somebody else does it too?

Your false worldview has lead you to amoral views when it suits your purposes. You use it to justify you lamenting the fact that this kid survived. Later you come back and act as if human life should be saved and if anybody disagrees they are immoral.

How in the hell do you get any kind of coherent moral code from divine command theory? From divine command theory, ANYTHING can be justified while using God as an excuse.

You've proven that with an atheistic moral code anything can be justified as well. You wanted this kid ripped apart because his parents were stupid and allowed it to happen. You believed you were in the right in your disappointment with the kid being saved.

You ignore 90% of the Biblical injunctions outright. You don't stone your neighbor's ox to death if it gores somebody, you do not stone your neighbor if he works on the sabbath, you mix fabrics, you eat shellfish, you do not support slavery, you do not drink poison as evidence of your faith, you do not speak in tongues as evidence of your faith, etc....

I do not live under the government God was setting up in Israel, why should I follow those rules? God told Jonah to go to Nineveh, should I go to there myself?

Basically you are down to hating/oppressing anybody outside your group (especially gays) using the Bible as your justification. It is frankly bizarre that I once drank the same kool-aid. The narcissistic need for immortality is impossible to overcome for many religious believers, it was an epic struggle for myself.

I'm not hoping for the death of any person, but I'm the bad guy? If I recall you think believing that homosexual activity is wrong is "hating on the gays" which is absurd.

Here is what the famous Christian apologist William Lane Craig has to say:


He says that all aborted fetuses go to HEAVEN. Their first conscious thought occurs IN HEAVEN! And you have the balls to say that is disgusting? WTF? W/O abortion SAVING them, the vast majority of those fetuses would end up living a miserable life on earth followed by an ETERNITY IN HELL! IF you really want to save souls from eternal torment, you would support abortion. Why do you support putting them into a lottery that could end up in eternal torment?

What is disgusting is you wishing for the death of and lamenting the fact that it didn't occur of a kid who fell in with a gorilla. Maybe during your rage you forgot about what you said. You seem to be rage confused.