Just as Mickey Mouse as Disney but without any of the fun.

After-birth abortion should be permissible?

Two doctors (?) - Alberto Giublini and Francesca Minerva - propose the idea of accepting the liquidation of newborns, in the same way abortions are accepted for preborns.

Original article (requiring subscription): http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract
Commented article: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/

Some ideas:
- A newborn, same as a fetus, are only "potential" human beings, lacking a "person's" moral right to life.
- Post-birth abortion (killing a newborn) should be permitted in all cases where abortion is permitted, even when the child has no disabilities.
- Parents should have other options than necessary keeping a child after it is born.
Permalink Io 
March 1st, 2012 9:01am
Maybe this doctor has a fetish for death threats.
Permalink Colm 
March 1st, 2012 9:07am
>>- A newborn, same as a fetus, are only "potential" human beings, lacking a "person's" moral right to life.

So when exactly does a "potential human" reach its potential, thereby gaining the "moral right to life"? 2 years old? 5 years old?  85??

Its amazing that the same idiots who support Abortion (IE Murder) rights will chain themselves to a tree to save it from the ax. Of course the tree has a moral right to life, but the baby? No.
Permalink Morons 
March 1st, 2012 9:08am
It's sad that the abortion "debate" has become so polarized and emotionally base that transparently inflammatory shit like this gets any attention. Proponents go nuts trying to distinguish their arguments from this bullshit, and opponents foam at the mouth pretending this is the mainstream abortion supporter's viewpoint.

Get the fuck over it already.
Permalink muppet 
March 1st, 2012 9:10am
Nobody can claim to know when life Starts... So if you are a aborting your baby you are basically saying "Maybe this is is Murder, but I don't care".

"Maybe I'm Committing Murder... meh"
Permalink Morons 
March 1st, 2012 9:10am
The argument isn't over when "life" starts. The argument for people like you is really "when does it have a soul?" but you carefully avoid words like that like the plague lest you be marginalized as a theocratic nutbag trying to temper government with your religious doctrine.

So instead you argue about life. Well, it's alive as soon as it's a cell. A sperm is alive. An egg is alive.

Masturbation for men is akin so the slaughter of MILLIONS of potential individuals, but then so is procreation.



No, the issue is "at what point is abortion cruelty." In my opinion, aborting an organism that can't objectively experience existence and have an awareness of self isn't cruel. There's fairly well supported theories surrounding when a fetus/infant is self aware.
Permalink muppet 
March 1st, 2012 9:16am
Yeah, I've been arguing for years that if you can abort 5 minutes before birth when one is fully viable using a dilation and extraction (suck out the brains and then chop the limps into pieces), it hardly makes a difference to do the same thing 10 minutes later, except to some legalist trying to defend the indefensible. So sure I agree with their position, though it's mean to be a "modest proposal" sort of argument.

A more serious argument is that because of post partum depression, any mother strangling her newborn before 1 year should at most be chargeable with manslaughter, under the presumption one is temporarily insane.
Permalink Idiot 
March 1st, 2012 9:21am
With the "non-persons" argument, that sort of argument can be extended up to about 12 years for boys and 16 for girls.
Permalink Idiot 
March 1st, 2012 9:22am
As far as having it both ways:

"Male circumcision is a brutal practice that hurts the baby!"

Later that day:

"Abortion rights now!"
Permalink Idiot 
March 1st, 2012 9:24am
@The Idiot

Why do you say its no different to add 10 min, but its not OK it remove 10 min? The line is arbitrary.

I reaffirm my statement "Abortion maybe murder" we don't know. To perform an action that maybe murder is sick and wrong...
Permalink Morons 
March 1st, 2012 9:27am
>Nobody can claim to know when life Starts... So if you are
>a aborting your baby you are basically saying "Maybe this
>is is Murder, but I don't care".
>
>"Maybe I'm Committing Murder... meh"

Think of all of the trillions of helpless sperm you've aborted into a tissue. You're a bigger mass murderer of potential life than Hitler.
Permalink Colm 
March 1st, 2012 9:32am
I am with muppet on this one.
Permalink the great purple 
March 1st, 2012 9:34am
>>Think of all of the trillions of helpless sperm you've aborted into a tissue. You're a bigger mass murderer of potential life than Hitler.

Killing sperm is not murder. Read a dictionary, Dumb-ass.
Permalink Morons 
March 1st, 2012 9:36am
>Nobody can claim to know when life Starts... -- Morons

>Killing sperm is not murder. -- Also Morons

Morons: Nobody can claim to know anything about when life starts. Except the dictionary.
Permalink Colm 
March 1st, 2012 9:42am
>Killing sperm is not murder.

Santorum says otherwise.
Permalink Peter 
March 1st, 2012 9:51am
@DumbassWhoNeedsToBeSpoonFedBasicShit

Murder is killing HUMAN life. I say a fetus maybe a human life. hence Abortion = Maybe Murder.

Go ahead, make the claim the "Sperm = Maybe human life", you are that stupid. But don't imply that i think such things.

Why you are at it, you can say the scratching my itch kills human skin cells and doping that makes me a murderer too. Sure why not.

This is extract the kind of logic that is brought in by Godless socialist liberals.
(IE @DumbassWhoNeedsToBeSpoonFedBasicShit)
Permalink Morons 
March 1st, 2012 9:55am
>>Santorum says otherwise.

Santorum is another fuck-tard. But least he understand the separation of church and state and doesn't think contraception should be outlawed...
Permalink Morons 
March 1st, 2012 9:58am
Colm's rebuttal is perfectly in line with your arguments. If you think the rebuttals are ridiculous, make better arguments.
Permalink muppet 
March 1st, 2012 9:58am
Nice troll.
Permalink Shylock, not Denman 
March 1st, 2012 10:02am
@muppet

Because Im not going to wait time explaining stupid shit to idiots..

Since you have 2 more brain cells then TheDumbAss, you can explain it to him.... So tell TheDumbAss:

1) What is the difference between Murder and Killing?
2) Why is it Ok to Scratch your skin but not to Kill you wife?
Permalink Morons 
March 1st, 2012 10:06am
>Go ahead, make the claim the "Sperm = Maybe human life",
>you are that stupid. But don't imply that i think such
>things.

You were claiming that NOBODY knew when human life started.

Now you claim to know. At some point after sperm are created.

This argument isn't even about abortion any more. It's about your inability to even agree with yourself.
Permalink Colm 
March 1st, 2012 10:12am
>>Now you claim to know. At some point after sperm are created.

Yes, its some time after (or at the moment) but not before the sperm come in contact\ fertilizes with the egg.
Permalink Morons 
March 1st, 2012 10:16am
>>It's about your inability to even agree with yourself.

Do you agree with yourself? Is scratching your skin murder?
Permalink Morons 
March 1st, 2012 10:18am
Seems to me the most obvious latest date for abortion shouldn't go beyond the earliest date for viability unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Permalink Bill42x 
March 1st, 2012 10:22am
But that's almost entirely arbitrary, Bill.
Permalink muppet 
March 1st, 2012 10:26am
>Nobody can claim to know when life Starts -- Morons

>Yes, [i know when life starts] its some time after (or at
>the moment) but not before
>the sperm come in contact\ fertilizes with the egg.

This sounds like pretty clear case of you not agreeing with yourself here.

>Do you agree with yourself?

Uh, yes. Most people do.
Permalink Colm 
March 1st, 2012 10:28am
These things generally are.
Permalink Bill42x 
March 1st, 2012 10:28am
>>Uh, yes [I think scratching your skin=murder]. Most [stupid] people do.
Permalink Morons 
March 1st, 2012 10:32am
>Uh, yes [I think scratching your skin=murder

Never thought or said that, I'm afraid. You're clutching at really loose straws here, dude.
Permalink Colm 
March 1st, 2012 10:35am
>>Never thought or said that, I'm afraid. You're clutching at really loose straws here, dude.

Really... and you claiming that because I say I say i know when human (god forbid i leave out this word) "Life does NOT start before fertilization" is the same as saying "I know when human life beings", is not “clutching at really loose straws” at all.

I’m just applying your same stupid logic back at you.
Permalink Morons 
March 1st, 2012 10:42am
"To perform an action that maybe murder is sick and wrong..."

Yours is a mistaken view because it assumes that there is somewhere out there an objective definition of "murder". It ain't. We (society) define what murder is.
Permalink Quant 
March 1st, 2012 10:46am
@Quant

"Godless socialist liberals.".. See above.
Permalink Morons 
March 1st, 2012 10:49am
Name calling is a concession of defeat.
Permalink Quant 
March 1st, 2012 11:00am
@Quant

There is fundamental difference between how people who are “God fearing” and people who are not think. Those differences cannot be reconciled, BUT they can come to the same conclusions…

Someone who is “Godless” (take that as name calling if you like) will believe that society creates morality, someone who is  “God fearing” will say god dictates morality. Both agree murder is wrong, but disagree on why…. 

“Godless” says: Society defines what a human life is, and can define a fetus and not human. Killing a fetus is not murder. Questions of when a fetus becomes human bring great philosophical debates about trimesters.

“God fearing” says: God defines what a human life is, I am unsure of god’s stance on what a fetus is so I will play it safe and not kill it, and Clergy type people outlaw abortion at any stage.  (This essentially is my stance)

Stupid “God fearing” take this to the extreme and say killing sperm = murder (Note : they bypassed Abortion altogether, going three steps away from murder and calling it murder. My killing Skin cells example went four steps away from murder)

Stupid “Godless” people equate killing animals to killing people, because “people are animals” and “life is life”. Human life has no sanctity nor is special in any way.

The above was an example of "Stupid Godless” VS "Stupid God fearing”
Permalink Morons 
March 1st, 2012 11:21am
I recommend 120th trimester abortions and above for all CoT members. The ones I don't like, anyway.
Permalink Bored Bystander 
March 1st, 2012 11:25am
That isn't so unreasonable. Under the same argument they are using that the retarded and children under 12 are not yet persons, autistic programers are not persons either.
Permalink Idiot 
March 1st, 2012 11:46am
:)
Permalink Bored Bystander 
March 1st, 2012 11:50am
Looks like they define person as "an individual capable of attributing to it's existence (at least) a few basic values, such that the lack of this existence results in a loss of these values".

I'm quoting what i read. Doesn't mean i understand or agree with that.
Permalink Io 
March 1st, 2012 1:08pm
The key issue about abortion is that before the fetus can live outside the mother, it's dependent on the life of the mother.

Thus the mother has freedom of choice about what to do.

All this foo-foo-rah about "personhood" or "humanhood" is an attempt to do a legalizative end-run to remove the rights of the mother.

Thus abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.  If the society thinks there's too many abortions, then make birth-control MORE available, make adoptions MORE straightforward, provide better sex-eduation classes.

Sadly, the same people trying to make abortion illegal are trying to make contraception illegal too.  It's as if they care about the fetus UNTIL it's born, after that it's just one more Anchor-Baby or welfare recipient.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 1st, 2012 1:15pm
You haven't made this much sense in a long time.
Permalink Canned Gods Inc. 
March 1st, 2012 1:19pm
Back in the old days, you could probably abort a baby after it was born as long as it was your own baby and you were the father. 

Heck, children were basically property, and even adults were considered the property of other property.  Destruction of property was a-okay as long it was your own. 

The whole "sanctity of life" notion is a fairly modern one and I think we're still grappling with what it means exactly. 

We all talk about "rights" as if they are real things when they're basically just artificial human constructs.

What it boils down to is: you can kill anyone you want as far as you can convince others that it's your right to do so.
Permalink Kenny 
March 1st, 2012 1:32pm
Oops.

>>Heck, children were basically property, and even adults were considered the property of other property

should be

>>Heck, children were basically property, and even adults were considered the property of other adults
Permalink Kenny 
March 1st, 2012 1:33pm
>>The key issue about abortion is that before the fetus can live outside the mother, it's dependent on the life of the mother.

My 4 year old is dependent on Me and my wife and would die with out us. Some people are dependent a machines for life.

I don't understand the relevance of dependent at all..
Permalink Morons 
March 1st, 2012 1:34pm
>>Sadly, the same people trying to make abortion illegal are trying to make contraception illegal too.

Who is trying trying to make contraception illegal?
Permalink Morons 
March 1st, 2012 1:35pm
Now, it's possible that legalizing the killing of unwanted newborns might not be the best strategy of the European / American societies in holding their ranks. Or all societies who have a problem with the aging and diminishing of their populations.

However, i believe in the FREEDOM OF CHOICE of the individual. Not of the State or The Church or The Society.

That kid should be my choice (better said my family's, as it takes two to make it), weather it means a GO or a NO on it's potential life.
Permalink Io 
March 1st, 2012 1:36pm
@IO

Should I have the FREEDOM OF CHOICE you tear you to peaces with a giant hook?
Permalink Morons 
March 1st, 2012 1:38pm
I think it would be very foolish for the genetical health and viability of a race to allow flawed babies to live, so I am in favor of euthanasia of babies when they are retarded or severely handicapped.

I think this is no ethical problem. Animals do it too, and humans are animals.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 1st, 2012 1:43pm
>> I am in favor of euthanasia of babies when they are retarded or severely handicapped.

If you really believed this you would have committed suicide by now, as you are in fact a severely handicapped & retarded baby.
Permalink Morons 
March 1st, 2012 1:45pm
>> Morons: Should I have the FREEDOM OF CHOICE you tear you to peaces with a giant hook?

Perhaps surprising you with this answer, i vote for YES.
But your freedom of choice doesn't grant you freedom of consequences from that (attempted) action :)
Permalink Io 
March 1st, 2012 1:52pm
>> Horrorwitz: I am in favor of euthanasia of babies when they are retarded or severely handicapped.

Me too. Except it should be their parent's choice. In a very early phase.
Permalink Io 
March 1st, 2012 1:54pm
>> Horrorwitz: I am in favor of euthanasia of babies when they are retarded or severely handicapped.

Also, allow parents to decide NOT to ditch the undesirable. If they can and will raise them, what should one care? :P
Permalink Io 
March 1st, 2012 1:57pm
If the parents decide not to kill their retarded/crippled baby, they or the baby (when it's an adult) should pay all cost associated with the handicap. Not the taxpayer.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 1st, 2012 2:17pm
(I am not a psychopath but I come close in many respects, so I am able to distance myself from irrelevant wishy-washy touchy-feely bullshit)
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 1st, 2012 2:18pm
Fair enough.
Permalink Io 
March 1st, 2012 2:18pm
To me, the value of a self-aware lifeform is more substantial than currently accepted in society.

I think that mammals deserve more "rights" and people too.

But we shouldn't be irrational and place a value on the life of a human newborn higher than say on that of an adult mouse.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 1st, 2012 2:26pm
It is in fact the worst kind of racism to place a value on the life of non-human sentient lifeforms (nearly all mammals and many birds etc.) below that of our own species.

Such racism is considered totally natural and perfectly acceptable, but it has no moral basis. It is based on speciesism (= racism) and it's nothing more than a "Law of the jungle" thing, where might is right.

We justify it by religious arguments: "A dog has no soul" or  speudoscientific babble: "A dog is intellectually so much inferior to a human that its right to life is not comparable to that of a human".

Well sorry, but a newborn baby is dumber than the dumbest dog. There is no logic or ethics that justifies elevating human newborns over, say, adult sewer rats.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 1st, 2012 2:32pm
Where do you draw the line, with your anthropocentric supremacist speciesism?

If you can spare the life of one newborn by killing one adult rat, you would kill the rat.
Many people would go as far as exterminating every last whale and dolphin to save the baby.

I know that for a fact, because I asked that question many times when I was a kid. The answer usually was that they would gladly exterminate all life on Earth to save their baby.

THAT is psychopathy, my friends.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 1st, 2012 2:35pm
You care only about one thing: To keep your NA alive, to multiply and spread your DNA and to keep the DNA of your species thriving.

That is the only "Law", and you base all your phony "ethics" on that ruthless psychopathic principle.
Permalink Dr. Horrorwitz 
March 1st, 2012 2:37pm
Cherish the mother if you don't want widespread abortion. The alternative is forced separation of mothers and babies at birth to feed an adoption industry and we've seen how well that works:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/apology-wont-heal-adoption-wounds-20120228-1u1eu.html

We must support single mothers if their kids are going to grow up to be useful taxpayers. Shame and adoption hasn't worked.
Permalink trollop 
March 1st, 2012 2:52pm
I consider this ethics debate (the original article) a constructive exercise in reductio ad absurdum.

If one is murder, the other is, too. If one is not murder, neither is the other.

"A modest proposal" brought to real life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
Permalink Bored Bystander 
March 1st, 2012 3:19pm
But, the idea about 120th trimester abortions for autists still holds.
Permalink Bored Bystander 
March 1st, 2012 3:20pm
:) **2
Permalink trollop 
March 1st, 2012 3:37pm
"My 4 year old is dependent on Me and my wife and would die with out us. Some people are dependent a machines for life."

This is true, but tries to equate a 4 year old's dependency on it's family with a fetus's dependency on its mother, which is false. 

Your 4 year old could be adopted -- an unborn fetus cannot be adopted.  Your 4 year old won't spontaneously mis-carry.  Your 4 year old has LOTS of options, since he/she doesn't share your blood supply.  And keeping your 4 year old alive for 9 months doesn't require carrying her around in your belly the entire time, with associated health risks for both parties.

And yes, if machines had human rights, and it was a risk to the machine's life, it might be acceptable to give the machine abortion rights so it could decide whether or not to keep working.  As none of that is true, that is yet another bogus attempt to justify forcing women to term.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 2nd, 2012 8:23am
"an unborn fetus cannot be adopted"

Viable after 6 months though, can be adopted.

Not that I think the argument is relevant, but if you want adoptability on the spot to be the factor, natural birth at home with a midwife is not the first point that can happen.

And obviously many people make adoption arrangements as soon as they get pregnant, so the adoption argument fails there as well.

Healthy babies are in huge demand by infertile couples.
Permalink Idiot 
March 2nd, 2012 10:12pm
So, adopt some, then get back to me.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 5th, 2012 1:56pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: March, 2012 Other topics: March, 2012 Recent topics Recent topics