• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

This isn't an opinion piece. This appeared in a journal on medical ethics.

Atreus21

Atreus21

Lifer
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full

Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue 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 disabled.
Click to expand...

I begin to feel like I'm living on the moon.

Once you subscribe to the premise that killing an unborn child is better than suffering them to live (if he or she has a birth defect), or suffering the parents to raise their child (for fear of causing them psychological stress), I challenge you to distinguish why a born infant is any less subject to this horridly consistent logic. These doctors, like some on this forum, are willing to follow this logic to its most extreme.

Far from being truly progressive, those on the left, or anyone for that matter, who would defend this argument are a brutally regressive force.
 
Atreus,

If you subscribe to the theory that a fertilized egg is a child you've already subscribed to the premise that killing an unborn child is fine if you want children.
 
Paratus said:
Atreus,

If you subscribe to the theory that a fertilized egg is a child you've already subscribed to the premise that killing an unborn child is fine if you want children.
Click to expand...

What I subscribe to is that deliberately taking actions to destroy your child, at any stage of development, is horrific.

If nature deems that a fertilized egg be flushed out, then no power of mine can stop it, or ought to.
 
the authors argue 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 disabled.
Click to expand...

A three year old fits their description and therefor should be included. A 15 year old certainly does not have the same moral status as a 50 year old and should be included.

They are psychopaths.
 
Atreus21 said:
What I subscribe to is that deliberately taking actions to destroy your child, at any stage of development, is horrific.

If nature deems that a fertilized egg be flushed out, then no power of mine can stop it, or ought to.
Click to expand...

So you couldn't have not fertilized the egg? You had to do it? I'm sorry but just because you wanted/may want children doesn't mean it's ethical for you to risk the lives of unborn babies just so you can get what you want, a born child.

As you know a fertilized egg has 50% chance of failing to implant.

Your response is only moral if you don't believe that fertilized egg is the same as a born infant.

Returning to your article it's the same kind of twisted reasoning that says a late term abortion that some how ends up with a live baby isn't really a baby.

Ideally abortions would happend before viability and after viability they would be delivered via C-section and given up for adoption.
 
ky54 said:
If you shoot a pregnant woman you get charged with double murder... why?
Click to expand...

Because people recognize the unborn are actually humans with a right to life...unless the mother does not want the unborn baby, at which point it magically stops being a human and turns into some other species.

If she changes her mind, though, and suddenly wants the unborn baby, it magically turns back into a human again and gains the right to life.
 
article said:
First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.
Click to expand...

Sometimes people get way too wrapped up in their thought process. The piece is so horrifyingly sadistic in it's extrapolation of abortion justification that I'd almost say it was written as a piece to discredit normal abortion. Unfortunately after digging deeper the authors do indeed seem genuine in their sociopathy and actually think there is moral ground from which to support infanticide.

Empathy is a powerful defense against absolutes, it is something both sides of the debate fail miserably in. In this case these two took it to extremes.
 
Paratus said:
So you couldn't have not fertilized the egg? You had to do it? I'm sorry but just because you wanted/may want children doesn't mean it's ethical for you to risk the lives of unborn babies just so you can get what you want, a born child.
Click to expand...

Conceiving a child comes at the risk that a fertilized egg might be destroyed by natural processes. As I said already, what is immoral is willingly destroying the child, not accidentally destroying the child.

Returning to your article it's the same kind of twisted reasoning that says a late term abortion that some how ends up with a live baby isn't really a baby.

Ideally abortions would happen before viability and after viability they would be delivered via C-section and given up for adoption.
Click to expand...

That's a lot more reasonable than what is currently legal.
 
A clump of cells at conception is potential. If you choose to remove the potential, you are not killing your child.. just what might have become your child. Not much different than sperm or eggs imo.
 
CLite said:
Sometimes people get way too wrapped up in their thought process. The piece is so horrifyingly sadistic in it's extrapolation of abortion justification that I'd almost say it was written as a piece to discredit normal abortion. Unfortunately after digging deeper the authors do indeed seem genuine in their sociopathy and actually think there is moral ground from which to support infanticide.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought too. At first I thought, "Okay, sensationalistic headline for what is actually a normal study with a few poor choices of words."

No. They're insane.

Empathy is a powerful defense against absolutes, it is something both sides of the debate fail miserably in. In this case these two took it to extremes.
Click to expand...

You're making an attempt at fairness, but I disagree. I attempt to empathize with a pregnant woman who is too young/poor/disadvantaged. But would I allow my personal problems to override the duty I have to protect my own child from harm, much less from myself?

Empathy is a valuable virtue. But, ironically, it's not absolute.
 
Atreus21 said:
That's what I thought too. At first I thought, "Okay, sensationalistic headline for what is actually a normal study with a few poor choices of words."

No. They're insane.



You're making an attempt at fairness, but I disagree. I attempt to empathize with a pregnant woman who is too young/poor/disadvantaged. But would I allow my personal problems to override the duty I have to protect my own child from harm, much less from myself?

Empathy is a valuable virtue. But, ironically, it's not absolute.
Click to expand...

I'm just wondering.. do you get this passionate about the 100k dead Iraqi fully born civilians that our actions led directly to the death of? or is it only brainless cells that get you riled up in concern for?
 
shadow9d9 said:
I'm just wondering.. do you get this passionate about the 100k dead Iraqi fully born civilians that our actions led directly to the death of? or is it only brainless cells that get you riled up in concern for?
Click to expand...

No, I don't get as riled up for men who willingly participate in a war, and get killed, in full knowledge of the risks.

I do get riled up at the rationalizations the left comes up with to justify other people killing their own children.
 
Atreus21 said:
No, I don't get as riled up for men who willingly participate in a war, and get killed, in full knowledge of the risks.

I do get riled up at the rationalizations the left comes up with to justify other people killing their own children.
Click to expand...

No, I said 100k innocent civilians who did not partake in the war.

You just decided to ignore what I said and make something else up to deal with the self deception.
 
How much of women's behavior do you want to control?

If she drinks and smokes and miscarries, do you prosecute her for a crime? How about if a woman miscarries while following her doctor's exact instructions, can she sue?
 
Once again Atreus takes fringe ideas regarding late term abortion and even post birth 'abortion' to justify his position that all abortion is murder. 🙄
 
Atreus21 said:
No, I don't get as riled up for men who willingly participate in a war, and get killed, in full knowledge of the risks.

I do get riled up at the rationalizations the left comes up with to justify other people killing their own children.
Click to expand...

Only your party can be both Pro-life and pro death penalty...LMAO
 
Thread title demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the field of medical ethics really is.
Hint: claiming that a medical ethics journal article is not an opinion piece is incorrect.
 
shadow9d9 said:
No, I said 100k innocent civilians who did not partake in the war.

You just decided to ignore what I said and make something else up to deal with the self deception.
Click to expand...

I read it too quickly. 100,000 innocent civilians were casualties of war. They, at the very least, had it within their power, certainly more than an infant does, to get out of the line of fire. Who is the most innocent of the two?

What this really is is you trying to divert.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top