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

[dank69]

No, as to what you think is morally permissible.

I don't know. I guess if I was put on the spot I would say if the baby is viable outside the womb with no use of technology, maybe the line could be drawn there. But again there may be exceptions past that point.

 

[Atreus21]

So now suffering is the factor you weigh?

If forced to choose between who I'd rather kill, yes.

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?

I'd still choose the adults, but this is silly. Abortion is not being forced to choose between killing one person or killing another.

 

[Atreus21]

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.

I'm going by the split along ideological lines in Gonzales v. Carhart.

 

[dank69]

If forced to choose between who I'd rather kill, yes.



I'd still choose the adults, but this is silly. Abortion is not being forced to choose between killing one person or killing another.

It is not silly. The situation is silly but it is valid discussion to determine where you draw your lines and why.

'I'd still choose the adults.' Choose them for what? Life or death? Previously you chose to kill the cells, so the word 'still' here implies that you would 'still' kill the cells even though there would be more suffering as a result. Please be clear if you want to discuss this further.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

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

And the right wants everyone who smokes weed put to death. See, I can make wildly inaccurate statements about an entire political ideology too!

In regards to the article, I consider myself fairly liberal, and I would say that anyone who legitimately argues that there is no difference between abortion and killing newborn babies is completely insane. Someone took A Modest Proposal way too literally.

 

[dank69]

And the right wants everyone who smokes weed put to death. See, I can make wildly inaccurate statements about an entire political ideology too!

In regards to the article, I consider myself fairly liberal, and I would say that anyone who legitimately argues that there is no difference between abortion and killing newborn babies is completely insane. Someone took A Modest Proposal way too literally.

The piece is looking at the whole situation from a purely philosophical standpoint and is starting from the assumption that it is okay to euthanize a baby post birth if it is determined that the baby has some sort of malady that dooms the baby to a short and/or painful life of suffering. That premise alone is open to debate so the whole article is wide open to attack from that angle. There are other angles to attack their conclusions but that's enough for now.

 

[Atreus21]

It is not silly. The situation is silly but it is valid discussion to determine where you draw your lines and why.

'I'd still choose the adults.' Choose them for what? Life or death? Previously you chose to kill the cells, so the word 'still' here implies that you would 'still' kill the cells even though there would be more suffering as a result. Please be clear if you want to discuss this further.

Choose them to survive, of course. I'm willing to discuss it as far as you want, but I don't quite understand it.

 

[Atreus21]

And the right wants everyone who smokes weed put to death. See, I can make wildly inaccurate statements about an entire political ideology too!

In regards to the article, I consider myself fairly liberal, and I would say that anyone who legitimately argues that there is no difference between abortion and killing newborn babies is completely insane. Someone took A Modest Proposal way too literally.

Okay, revision. The most ardent defenses of abortion come from the left.

 

[dank69]

Choose them to survive, of course. I'm willing to discuss it as far as you want, but I don't quite understand it.

Okay, then you have invalidated 'suffering' as a concern for deciding who lives and who dies and limited it to 'capacity for suffering.' This means that according to your own posts in this thread, an adult's life has more value than that of a fertilized egg because of their difference in capacity for suffering.

 

[Atreus21]

Okay, then you have invalidated 'suffering' as a concern for deciding who lives and who dies and limited it to 'capacity for suffering.' This means that according to your own posts in this thread, an adult's life has more value than that of a fertilized egg because of their difference in capacity for suffering.

Your example only holds water if the child's life necessarily comes at the cost of killing the mother, against which the vast majority of pro-lifers have no complaint if an abortion is performed.

But the vast majority of abortions come at the cost of inconveniencing the parents, not killing them.

 

[corwin]

So basically this is showing there are absolute nut balls on both sides of the issue? Is anybody really surprised by this?

Well reading further it appears some of you are

 

[cybrsage]

Only your party can be both Pro-life and pro death penalty...LMAO

I hear this a lot, but those who say it do not bother to actually think critically about what they are saying.

Pro life and pro death penalty easily coexist. Supporting not killing the innocent and supporting killing the guilty are two very compatible things.

The problem is when you have people who are pro abortion and anti death penalty. They support the killing of the innocent while not supporting the killing of the guity.

 

[monovillage]

I don't see why the OP is being so nice to the lefties that are seriously working to derail his thread, he should just report them and not respond to them.

Here's another link to the article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Here's a money quote from the editor of the ethics piece.

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 society”.

I always knew that the people that support a "liberal society" want to murder children, but usually they're more circumspect about actually admitting it.

 

[Ausm]

I hear this a lot, but those who say it do not bother to actually think critically about what they are saying.

Pro life and pro death penalty easily coexist. Supporting not killing the innocent and supporting killing the guilty are two very compatible things.

The problem is when you have people who are pro abortion and anti death penalty. They support the killing of the innocent while not supporting the killing of the guity.

LOL Wut....I better sit down after reading that spin.

 

[hal2kilo]

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.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[cybrsage]

LOL Wut....I better sit down after reading that spin.

If sitting down engages your brain, by all means do it.

Lets take my statement apart so I can support it. I then expect you to show where I am wrong, otherwise my statement stands as correct.

A human who has committed no crimes is innocent.
A human who has committed crimes is guilty.
A human who is aborted is killed.
A human who is executed is killed.

Abortion is the killing of the innocent.
Death penalty is the killing of the guilty.

 

[dank69]

Your example only holds water if the child's life necessarily comes at the cost of killing the mother, against which the vast majority of pro-lifers have no complaint if an abortion is performed.

But the vast majority of abortions come at the cost of inconveniencing the parents, not killing them.

It's no surprise that you take this position since you do not value 'actual suffering' when making decisions but instead 'capacity for suffering.' I think this is an extremely twisted way of thinking, but I doubt I can convince you otherwise.

Basically to hold your viewpoint, you have to believe that a lifetime of suffering is preferable to a swift painless death as it seems you believe death trumps all forms of suffering. Do you think euthanizing a suffering animal is also wrong?

 

[HomerJS]

If you shoot a pregnant woman you get charged with double murder... why?

If a woman becomes pregnant and miscarries that same year she can't claim a dependant. Why?

 

[Atreus21]

It's no surprise that you take this position since you do not value 'actual suffering' when making decisions but instead 'capacity for suffering.' I think this is an extremely twisted way of thinking, but I doubt I can convince you otherwise.

Basically to hold your viewpoint, you have to believe that a lifetime of suffering is preferable to a swift painless death as it seems you believe death trumps all forms of suffering. Do you think euthanizing a suffering animal is also wrong?

What is truly twisted is presuming that we not only can predict someone's future, not only decide that we may act to their detriment based on this prediction, but also to kill them if based on this prediction we deem them unfit to live. I don't care if I invoke Godwin. That is nazi-esque.

A swift painless death is at my sole discretion to prescribe to myself. I alone will decide whether my suffering is so bad as to merit death. That has no place in the hands of anyone else, not even my parents. This notion is so horrible that it's difficult to type about it without using all caps.

Whose life is it, and therefore who has the right to end it?

 

[woolfe9999]

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.

Ding. The contradiction between the first and second sentences in the OP's subject line is hilarious.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm going by the split along ideological lines in Gonzales v. Carhart.

You said "the left," not members of the SCOTUS. By being more specific, you avoid the charge of over-generalizing.

 

[dank69]

What is truly twisted is presuming that we not only can predict someone's future, not only decide that we may act to their detriment based on this prediction, but also to kill them if based on this prediction we deem them unfit to live.

A swift painless death is at my sole discretion to prescribe to myself. I alone will decide whether my suffering is so bad as to merit death. That has no place in the hands of anyone else, not even my parents. This notion is so horrible that it's difficult to type about it without using all caps.

Whose life is it, and therefore who has the right to end it?

Well, I did ask you where you stand on animal euthanization...
And if you sidestep that by saying animals aren't same as human, then what about people in coma without living will? Never okay for family to pull plug?

 

[Atreus21]

You said "the left," not members of the SCOTUS. By being more specific, you avoid the charge of over-generalizing.

Charge me with over-generalizing then. The majority of opposition to banning late term abortion comes from the left, and the SCOTUS ruling on Gonzales v. Carhart was a sample of that.

 

[CitizenKain]

I always knew that the people that support a "liberal society" want to murder children, but usually they're more circumspect about actually admitting it.

So what does that say about the people sending in death threats? Considering the pro-life movement fosters and supports murderers this doctor should look out.

 

[FoBoT]

the privacy premise (roe v wade) is basically saying a woman owns her body and everything inside of it and as the owner of the body, the woman gets to decide what happens to it. in other words, the egg/zygote/fetus etc etc being a part of her body, is her property to do with as she pleases. they pretty much ignore the probable 'future', ie that 'body stuff' eventually turns into something that is no longer her property, ie a separate person