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

[Atreus21]

Once again Atreus takes fringe ideas regarding late term abortion and even post birth 'abortion' to justify his position that all abortion is murder.

Fringe ideas? The left vigorously opposes bans on late term abortions.

 

[Atreus21]

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.

Please elaborate.

 

[dank69]

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.

Yeah, dodging bullets is easy.

Least innocent? Really? How does one get more innocent than innocent? If Mother Theresa was caught in the crossfire was she less innocent than a child?

Your grasp on logic is less than stellar.

 

[dank69]

Fringe ideas? The left vigorously opposes bans on late term abortions.

That doesn't change the fact that you don't acknowledge a difference between a few cells and a fetus that is viable outside the womb.

 

[Paratus]

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.



That's a lot more reasonable than what is currently legal.

We arrest and incarcerate people who accidentally "destroy" their children. Especially I'd we knowingly put them into a dangerous situation.

Your "reasoning" makes conception just as dangerous as leaving a child in a parked car for an hour in the summer. Plus unlike accidentally leaving a child in a car, you are intentionally doing it by trying to have a child.

It's the reason I reject that line of thought. I have children and we did not "kill" several of them trying to have the ones we did. Which would be the end result of that belief.

 

[nonlnear]

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.

Please elaborate.

If elaboration is necessary then elaboration is futile.

 

[PokerGuy]

"
Documented civilian deaths from violence
105,451 – 115,161"

How is that even relevant to the discussion in this thread? Are the two somehow connected? If one is stopped does it impact the other?

Stop trolling.

 

[dank69]

How is that even relevant to the discussion in this thread? Are the two somehow connected? If one is stopped does it impact the other?

Stop trolling.

It's relevant to this post:

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.

 

[SagaLore]

This... is... SPARTA!

 

[halik]

Ah yes, neoconservatives working hard to stop human evolution, one fetus at a time. Let's propagate all genetic disorders on the premise that every fertilized zygote is sacred.

 

[Atreus21]

Yeah, dodging bullets is easy.

Least innocent? Really? How does one get more innocent than innocent? If Mother Theresa was caught in the crossfire was she less innocent than a child?

Your grasp on logic is less than stellar.

Do you or do you not subscribe to the arguments in the article listed in the OP?

 

[shadow9d9]

How is that even relevant to the discussion in this thread? Are the two somehow connected? If one is stopped does it impact the other?

Stop trolling.

I don't like having to care about fully grown humans that we slaughter! I care about brainless cells more!

Completely relevant.

 

[Atreus21]

If elaboration is necessary then elaboration is futile.

How? I was under the impression that if something is published in a medical journal, it means it's supposed to be taken seriously, as opposed to some moron in some blog spouting nonsense.

Are you contending that medical journals are just as subject to the same caliber of nonsense?

 

[shadow9d9]

Do you or do you not subscribe to the arguments in the article listed in the OP?

Do you or do you not care about brainless cells more than 100,000 fully grown and completely innocent human beings that our actions directly killed?

If you do care more about humans than cells, show me all the posts you've made decrying our slaughter of them.

 

[dank69]

Do you or do you not subscribe to the arguments in the article listed in the OP?

I do not. I labeled it as fringe, didn't I? I also don't think it is moral to use any abortion as birth control unless previous birth control methods were used and failed. I also don't think I have any authority to demand others follow my moral definitions.

 

[Atreus21]

Your "reasoning" makes conception just as dangerous as leaving a child in a parked car for an hour in the summer. Plus unlike accidentally leaving a child in a car, you are intentionally doing it by trying to have a child.

Accidently leaving your children in a car is negligence. It's carelessness. Just like shooting a gun into the air and having the bullet come down and kill someone.

Getting into a car accident that's not your fault and having your child get killed as a result is not negligence.

It's the reason I reject that line of thought. I have children and we did not "kill" several of them trying to have the ones we did. Which would be the end result of that belief.

Fertilized eggs are occasionally kicked out of the womb by entirely natural means, and we can't control that. What we can control is whether or not we deliberately induce it, and that's immoral. To the extent that people can control their actions, I hold them responsible for the results. To the extent that they cannot, I don't. It's that simple.

 

[Atreus21]

I do not. I labeled it as fringe, didn't I? I also don't think it is moral to use any abortion as birth control unless previous birth control methods were used and failed. I also don't think I have any authority to demand others follow my moral definitions.

You do not. At what point in a unborn child's development do you consider abortion permissible?

 

[Siddhartha]

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



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.

This is an opinion piece written in a medical journal, nothing more.

 

[nonlnear]

How? I was under the impression that if something is published in a medical journal, it means it's supposed to be taken seriously, as opposed to some moron in some blog spouting nonsense.

Are you contending that medical journals are just as subject to the same caliber of nonsense?

Medical ethics != medicine. _______ ethics is, by definition, a bunch of opinion pieces. Nothing more and nothing less.

Also, publication in a journal means that something might be worth grappling with by subject matter experts. It may be complete crap, but it's worth kicking around to see what comes of it. That's all. It does NOT mean that it is worth taking seriously for the purposes of public policy. Not by a long shot.

 

[soundforbjt]

Thread title should be changed. This is an opinion piece.

 

[dank69]

You do not. At what point in a unborn child's development do you consider abortion permissible?

Permissible as in what I think should be law? I don't know if I can define that so easily. There are many factors and gray areas. I can say with certainty that within the first trimester it should be permissible in any situation for any reason including the mother simply does not want it any more. Later trimesters to me get into a much more fuzzy area that I'm not sure if I could properly account for all situations, especially now that technology is progressing to the point of saving the fetus at earlier and earlier stages. I used to subscribe to the theory that if it is viable outside the womb then abortion should not be legal, but I'm not so sure anymore. What if we develop the technology to take a zygote out of a woman and grow it to maturity in a lab? I don't think that gives a few cells the right to life or magically bestows 'personhood' upon that clump of cells.

 

[Atreus21]

Do you or do you not care about brainless cells more than 100,000 fully grown and completely innocent human beings that our actions directly killed?

If I had to kill one of them, I'd kill the clump of cells, not because they aren't human, but because I'm forced to make a judgment, and I choose to kill the one who has less capacity for suffering.

 

[Atreus21]

Permissible as in what I think should be law? I don't know if I can define that so easily.

No, as to what you think is morally permissible.

 

[dank69]

If I had to kill one of them, I'd kill the clump of cells, not because they aren't human, but because I'm forced to make a judgment, and I choose to kill the one who has less capacity for suffering.

So now suffering is the factor you weigh? What if the 100,000 are killed instantly with no suffering and no families/friends aquaintances left to mourn their loss of life, yet the clump of cells belongs to one woman who has been trying to have a child for years?

 

[woolfe9999]

Fringe ideas? The left vigorously opposes bans on late term abortions.

What you call "the left" is actually rather split on late term abortions. The laws of what are usually referred to as "blue" and "purple" states vary quite a bit. It's fair to say that the left is nearly unified on early term abortions, but not on late term. It's also worth mentioning that many conservative states don't even have full bans. Some ban it only in certain situations.