Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

reply to post by Unity_99


I saw this on my search engine this morning and thought the whole article was distasteful yet the Philosophers have a point. Killing newborns IS comparable to abortion. Both are “killing”. Yet when directed to a poll on whether killing a newborn baby is morally the same as having an abortion you have two choices. Yes or No.

Many people will look at the poll and be so outraged by the article that they will hit the No option. “Killing a Newborn is appalling”, they will think and click No immediately without thinking. The question though, was “Is killing a newborn baby morally the same as having an abortion?”

The Yes No answer was designed to play on emotion rather than critical thinking. I was ready to hit the No button in outrage too until I realised that had I done that, I would be admitting that Abortion is different to Killing a Newborn. Just because a word was invented for terminating the life of a baby does not make it different. Just because a word was invented for a baby in its early formative stages of development in the womb does not mean it is less of a baby or a life.

The Dr’s of philosophy argue that one-third of infants with Down syndrome are not diagnosed in the womb, which means mothers of children with severe disabilities should have the chance to end a child's life after, as well as before, birth. However, the pair also want the principle of killing newborns extended to healthy babies, because a mother who is unwilling to care for it outweighs an infant's right to life.

Uh huh. So these Dr’s of Philosophy would rather murder a healthy newborn baby than say consider adoption a viable option? Has Abortion opened the floodgate for this sort of thinking? If you are legally allowed to kill newborns, where will it end?

Of course we are no longer allowed to comment on these sorts of articles. Serious topics where people need to voice their outrage, disgust and even viable alternatives will see the comment section not available. Our thoughts are thus reduced to Yes or No options that never truly reflect our thoughts and opinions. In the end, this could simply be social manipulation via the media.

its got Pontius Pilate written all over it

reply to post by MollyStewart


I too, noticed the lack of reader comments in the article. I was wondering what the local consumers might have to say about it... sadly... not an option I guess.

But really, everyone... I understand the outrage - really - despite the hyperbolic exclamations and expressions of frustrated disbelief - no one here sincerely wishes pain and misery on anyone, no one here will contend that death is not something we should have to chose without tremendous deliberation, right?

I know there are those who say such things... but to really desire the the pain of another is symptomatic of a choice to neglect the tenets professed by the objection in the first place.

We have to find the facts... even if they are precious few;

I will need the help of those willing to enter this debate flatly and without agenda.

Find fact: What is the point of this debate if there is no soul?

Presumably, the thing most of us intend to mean when referring to a soul, is the existence of the specific human being's essential consciousness which persists infinitely. This is not necessarily the function of a deity - although it is predominantly deists who insist that this is so, due to the grace of their particular God. So be it.

Lacking an 'after life' leads me to infer that there then can be no 'before' life. If this seems incorrect please tell me.

At this level of reality the "soulless" must accept that life is an event... one with a beginning and an end; all of which is relevant from the present point up to that future which is immediately in reach to influence (results may vary). To be human is then simply a species-specific manifestation of that phenomenon we call "life." When we die, we cease to exist, before we are made the individual we recognize ourselves to be, we do not exist.

Removing the distasteful notion of interference with any pretentious "purpose" to human existence, is there reason to stigmatize the act of terminating a pregnancy (aborting a child)?

(Did you notice that? The two ways to say the same thing. The logical opposite of Pro-Choice is either Anti-Freedom or Pro-Choice-less-ness. The logical opposite of Pro-Life is Anti-Life or Pro-Death. "terminate a pregnancy".... "abort a child".... Our words damn us to be trapped in false choices sometimes, no?)

Is it a child? Or is he or she an "it?"

When does the distinction come? Do we really agree on what is the key component to the distinction? Is it brain activity? Is it a heart beat? Is it conception?

Does that matter when the child is unwanted and the cause of grief and despair for those it will depend on?
Or what if the child is wanted and will nevertheless be the cause of grief and despair for those it will depend on?

I am afraid of the answers in a soulless world. It seems to belie hope.

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple

Nor is it OK or moral to tell a woman what is morally acceptable or not when it comes to HER body.
...

Except that A FETUS IS NOT PART OF A WOMAN'S BODY...

If we use your logic and it is ok to murder a fetus, or a newborn baby, because according to you they are part of a woman's body, then it is ok for a woman to murder their grown child, even if it is an adult because it has the dna of the mother, hence the child, or grown adult BELONGS to the mother, according to you...

Heck, we can take that a step further and legalize murder completely...

reply to post by MollyStewart


I believe in wide open abortions in the very early stages, either morning after pill, or the 6-8 week mark, where it is comparative to a miscarriage, but not at later stages.

So no the two don't compare. I am horrified by countries that cut living babies out of women, in pieces, who feel the pain, just as any new born when they get jabbed in the heel screams, or gets circumsized with a couple days, screams.

That the courts dont use COMMON SENSE shows satanists run the show.

This article promotes murdering infants.

reply to post by blueorder


And most notoriously employed by far right nazis.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Ok.. even if we agree with you that it wasn't part of her body, you are still saying what she can and can't do with her body. You are actually better off not touching that argument. You are basically arguing that a woman can take an abortion pill, smoke, drink, do drugs, etc because it is what she chooses to do with her body. The baby isn't part of it remember?

reply to post by Unity_99


As a philosophy major, let me clarify this. Please, relax and don't assume that I am agreeing with either position; I only wish to clarify. Ethics is a majorly contested part of philosophy (think of this question: is it right to kill one completely innocent human being if her continued life will result in 4 other innocent people's deaths?). The abortion/baby stuff is along similar lines.

Either abortion is wrong or killing of babies, the severely mentally retarded, and human vegetables is okay. That is because these humans (and I mean that in a purely genetic sense of the term) technically aren't "persons" and when we say persons we mean they are not sentient. For example, we can imagine that a dog and a baby have a similar faculty of reasoning, emotional development, etc. If you disagree with this position completely, that is fine. But you need to be a vegan/vegetarian and believe strongly in animal rights to be consistent. Otherwise, the continued suffering and killing of animals would be utterly wrong to you, as would the killing of a baby.

I understand this sounds disgusting. That is why people who argue against abortion use it in their arguments: either you find a way to disprove them or you agree with them (or you can believe the animal rights bit). And most people can't disprove them. Please don't get upset and pissed about this and call them idiots. You are giving into ignorance and failing to prove their conclusions wrong.

I have heard some arguments against why it is wrong to kill human vegetables/babies:
- Human vegetables is easier: we do not kill them because of the status they once held as persons.
-Babies: we don't kill them because they are a "commodity", that is they have taken nine months of strenuous effort to produce (I don't particularly like this argument, to call a baby a commodity is absurd, yet at least it's a vocal attempt to disarm the above arguments).

The offense you feel is how some people feel about abortions; the reason why we think it is wrong to kill is because you are removing someone's life or their potential for a future life (the latter being why we feel offended when babies are murdered by their parents). We can all agree with the fact that a baby does not have a "life" as an adult person does; from here it is a VERY slippery slope to concluding that we should respect the unborn fetus because it too has a future life like ours.

Just playing devils advocate again.

When Lacy Peterson was killed her husband was charged with double homicide.
She was still within the first or barley the second trimester.

Technically didn't he just abort the baby not kill it?
He should have only been charged with one murder.

I do like playing devils advocate.

Every 'fetus' grows up to be a human being. It's amazing to me how blind people are to this FACT. When you're pro-choice, who's choice? The baby or mother? My ex-wife aborted my son/daughter without my knowledge. But it's ok, because it's part of her body, but who cares about the father's "choice"? It's sick, it's sick that people are so brain-washed into thinking it's ok to kill innocent children.

reply to post by Seanbomber


I've read some very intelligent Philosophers, and enjoyed Seneca and Benefits enormously, for example. However, in no way were they simpletons. They did not make fallacies.
webspace.ship.edu...

Nor generalize in areas were distinctions are critical.

Distinction between unborn and born is MAJOR. It is obvious, easily agreed upon by most, except those who are apologetics for psychopaths, or deviant themselves, and basic.

This article relates to murdering BORN HUMAN BEINGS. No matter what divisions people feel with regard to unborn, born is consciousness.

Now, with regards to unborn, anyone wishing to make generalizations would not be following in the minds of the philosophers, who could divine the most minute matters. A good example on the variances in benefits is enormous.

A clump cells dividing does not equal a fully formed tiny fetus, nor does that equal a more develped fetus with brain functioning and rem sleep. To view another way, something that can pass in full form easily due to smallness, does NOT EQUATE chainsaw massacre in the womb of a larger fetus/baby, who coincidently has rem sleep.

Not rocket science material either.

Women count very much as well, so when something that can pass in wholeness, out easily, not through labor, that does not have higher brain functioning, and could on its own miscarriage and who she vehemently doesn't wish in her, and even would go to the extremes of high risk back alley abortions to be rid of, I don't think anyone has the right to decide for her.

I will repeat this, and this is 100% true. If men gave birth, abortions would not even be debated.

There is not a philospher I've read that would equate a dividing cell with a full formed baby.

Else throw their works out, because some children can out perform them in basic thought.

By the way, we are NOT AI, and we are NOT our bodies. We are Light/Consciousness/Soul and we beam in. The body is the car, we are the driver. So, if something occurs early enough on that miscarriages are common, and the soul needs to be with that family, those kind of things can be arranged. I've read some wonderful NDE's including one where just before the wife miscarried, the father was woken in the night by a young man, spirit, who woke him by calling him father. Then explained to the suprised man, that he had to go for a time, and was told about the miscarriage that would happen, then about the birth of their daughter, I think next, to be followed by his return.

Here is another example of a fallacy, that is, using sweeping generalizations as if basic, for complex issues that require categorization and distinctions.

en.wikipedia.org...

Another favorite device is the "false generalization", an abstraction of the argument that shifts discussion to platitudes where the facts of the matter are lost. There are many, many more tricks to divert attention from careful exploration of a subject.[1]....

And a host of others.

My key words were: "logic that replaces appropriate distinctions with erroneous generalizations"

I believe in wide open abortions in the very early stages, either morning after pill, or the 6-8 week mark, where it is comparative to a miscarriage, but not at later stages. So no the two don't compare.

reply to post by Unity_99


I understand there may be circumstances where it may be necessary to terminate a pregnancy for the medical safety, mental health and or well being of the gestational carrier. What I do not agree with in this day and age is using abortion as a means of contraception. There are many and varied, extremely successful methods of contraception available to women who are active and do not want or are not ready to bring children into the world.

Abortion has become a convenience after the fact and may have even been promoted by those organ donor doctors who found a steady, cheap and reliable supply of stem cells for research? All they have to do is change public opinion right? Make it somewhat acceptable? Introduce a couple of scenarios people can empathise with, just enough to make it about freedom and choice and once that happens, Sharon and Darren don't have to worry about condoms any more because she can just take a morning after pill! Can't make it to the Doctors in time? No problem, quick visit to the clinic and we can whisk your problem right outta there.

What is rarely mentioned is how the young woman will feel in 10, 20 or even 30 years time when she reflects back on her life and carries the grief of a life that might have been. I really did not want to make this about a pro life or pro choice debate. I simply wanted to explain that I think that the two are comparable. Killing a foetus is still killing. Killing a newborn is killing. What is so difficult to understand here? Killing a healthy newborn baby or a healthy developing foetus is ending the potential for that life which beggars belief when there are other less fatal and far more positive alternatives.

IMO

Originally posted by MollyStewart
Abortion has become a convenience after the fact and may have even been promoted by those organ donor doctors who found a steady, cheap and reliable supply of stem cells for research?

Who is having abortions as a matter of convenience?

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by AuranVector

 

Actually,

Colton Burpo would FIERCELY disagree with you.

During his trip to Heaven during his way overdue appendicitus operation . . .

he met his older sister--still born at such an early age, the parents did not know her sex. They had never talked to anyone about it. Certainly Colton had never heard of her.

All the other kids looked like their Dad with dad's hair. The still-born daughter looked like Mom with Mom's hair. That really touched the mother when Colton told her.

www.amazon.com...=sr_nr_p_n_feature_browse-b_mrr_0?rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3AHEAVEN+IS+FOR+REAL+BURPO%2Cp_n_feature_browse-bin%3A2656022011&bbn=28 3155&keywords=HEAVEN+IS+FOR+REAL+BURPO&ie=UTF8&qid=1330646360&rnid=618072011

Seems to me abundant evidence like Colton's affirms that your assumptions are quite wrong on the matter.

Assuming his experience is real -- Colton Burpo's NDE (near death experience) at age 4 does NOT negate the fact that the baby's body is ensouled by its first breath.

This soul that Colton met in "heaven" (astral plane) belongs to his family's group of souls. (People belong to a group of souls that tend to incarnate together again & again because of karmic reasons.) She would have incarnated if the body had come to full term and been born. She would have entered the body with its first breath.

Materialists have the creation of the soul and body backwards. They think a body has to be created for there to be a soul.

It's the exact opposite: the soul already exists. The physical body is created for the soul, so it can operate on the physical plane.

When the soul leaves the body with its last breath, the body is an empty container and returns to dust.

As for the other features of Colton's experience, even his parents admit these may have been the result of his bible training. Colton's father is the pastor of the Crossroads Wesleyan Church in Imperial, Nebraska.

It's not surprising that Colton's description of "heaven" would fit the conventions of Fundamentalist Christians.
He got to sit in Jesus' lap and Jesus was dressed in purple. He met John the Baptist and all the people in "heaven" had wings.

Some elements of our NDE's fit our cultural programming: a Hindu would see his ishtadevata, a Muslim would probably see his concept of Muhammad or the angel Gabriel, etc.

I thought it was interesting that Colton saw that everyone was young in "heaven."

I have seen people on the Other Side and they were young again and more beautiful than they were in "life."
This is not unusual .

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by AuranVector

 

It appears that staunch anti-abortion types have no interest in providing quality of life to unwanted babies that didn't have to be born.

Outrageously WRONG.

Christians against abortions have done the most by far with pregnancy centers; adoption agencies; adoption help; foster care help etc. etc. etc.

Checking out the facts before making such rash statements might well leave one looking less uninformed.

Really? How many crack babies have you adopted? Babies who are considered "Undesirable" for a variety of reasons -- medical issues, race, etc -- are almost impossible to adopt.

See Newcovenant's post on Page 13 of this thread -- I think it was the 6th post down -- she articulated the problem clearly.

Now if you're talking about a blond, blue-eyed baby boy -- heck, you could sell it.

But most unwanted babies do not fit that description. They're from the underclass -- probably non-white and the product of generations created from substandard living conditions (such as poor diet).

Originally posted by AuranVector
Really? How many crack babies have you adopted? Babies who are considered "Undesirable" for a variety of reasons -- medical issues, race, etc -- are almost impossible to adopt.

See Newcovenant's post on Page 13 of this thread -- I think it was the 6th post down -- she articulated the problem clearly.

Now if you're talking about a blond, blue-eyed baby boy -- heck, you could sell it.

But most unwanted babies do not fit that description. They're from the underclass -- probably non-white and the product of generations created from substandard living conditions (such as poor diet).

Not many crack babies being adopted has more to do with the foster system than the people seeking adoptions.
Babies with disabilities are actually harder to adopt the state doesn't trust people to take care of them.

Hell adopting a baby under the age of 18 to 24 months is damn near impossible in America these days.
The paper work takes years if you aren't an already approved foster parent.

That's one of the reasons why so many Americans go to other countries to adopt, it's easier less paperwork and hassle.

Add in the fact that once a baby is over two years old many potential parents don't want to adopt them for a number of reasons including not having a "bond" with the child.
More failed adoptions take place with older children because parent and child don't feel the bond.

Why do these kids stay in the system past two years and don't get adopted?
The system is too convoluted and hard to navigate, so many kids get stuck in the system and screwed.

Kids not being adopted in America is more of a system, bureaucratic BS issue than a reflection on the people trying to adopt.

Seems like all you care about doing is demonizing people you don't agree with.

reply to post by MollyStewart


Here is the thing. I do not believe in terminating any pregnancy past 8 or 9 weeks. Nor putting any woman/child under someones elses panels.

The only thing that is civilized, substantively equal and fair, is that abortion is covered, by medical services, open to all, does not need parents consent, if a child/teen is pregnant, they may abort, and FREE.

Sorry that is how Canada does it. It works. And I do believe legally in capping them at 9 weeks.

Its moral, ethical, equal, and takes in account both the needs of the would be mother and the being that is developing.

And no we're not going backwards to satisfy the logical fallacies of these medical students or doctors.

The ones that violate the most normal distinctions: Born and Unborn, with ignorant and illogical generalizations, that therein not only show intent to harm humanity, but also ego.

reply to post by Seanbomber

Either abortion is wrong or killing of babies, the severely mentally retarded, and human vegetables is okay. That is because these humans (and I mean that in a purely genetic sense of the term) technically aren't "persons" and when we say persons we mean they are not sentient.

Its not that simple. Babies (most probably also late-term foetuses) and severely mentally retarded people are sentient. They are not sapient or self-aware, tough. Higher animals are sentient. People under general anesthesia may also not be sentient. As for "human vegetables", it is important to differ between people in coma, persistent vegetative state and brain dead (irreversibly destroyed brain) people.

reply to post by Maslo


Late developing fetus's are NOT mentally challenged. The only risk they have to early birth is lung capacity, not brain.

Babies are at the most brilliant time any human is ever at, their minds are absorbing and learning information at a higher rate than they will be at 4 or 10 or 30. Babies are genius's.

Today, being born half term, 20 weeks, is much more likely to yield survival, with some possible early challenges, in some cases, lifelong problems.

However, I met a young woman who was beautiful, energetic, and due to her families drinking, she'd gone the opposite, very upright.

She was born long before Science's ability to keep a 20 week preemie alive. She was born exactly at 20 weeks. She lived. No later problems existed at all.

She was considered to be a medical miracle baby.

I also considered her to be possibly the brightest member of her family they were not the sharpest tools in the shed.

On the part about distinctions. When a child cannot be suctioned out and its no longer similar to a miscarriage, they should not be aborting them.

In countries where abortions are performed free and open and funneled down the early weeks, abortion actually DROP.