Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Until certain stage of development (Thank you Maslo - viable fetus) fetus is dependent only on the mother. Nobody can keep fetus alive if mother is gone. So the 100000000000% dependance is on mother alone.
After this stage there is a growing chance of survival if society replaces mother and then the 10000000000% dependance is spread totally different.
This is wrong to put both stages in the same group and apply the same logic. Adult individual without consiousness for prolonged period of time is also 100000000000% dependent but since there is a way to keep him/her alive nobody mentiones justifying of executing hers/his "After birth abortion" - it is clearly after the birth of individual - even if he/she is not disabled and will recover and fully function in a few years.

I would like to take a moment to divest myself of the numerous "what if's" in the scenario for a moment.

I have always been respectful of the fact that despite my own inclinations, my values cannot be the arbiter of what is right or wrong for another - especially lacking that persons consent. So this is not about it being wrong to abort a fetus, or oppressively imposing to restrict that choice from another. But it is about an observation...

These so call ethicists may be doing the world a favor by forcing them to acknowledge that as we have delineated a 'rationale' that allows for abortion in certain cases, we cannot arbitrarily state that the particular rationale is 'logically' restricted.

We either accept that a person has the right to terminate the life of their offspring or not.

Often this deliberation and it's different cultural outcomes leads to cries of barbarism and outrage; or ideological oppression in others. For most of mankind it had been a religious tenet that controlled the debate and thus ended it. For others it was some equivalent 'doctrinesque' approach to civil society.

Women have aborted unwanted children, or terminated unwanted pregnancies - if you prefer - for many thousands of years. Certain cultures embraced a 'fruitful and multiply' hybrid concept as if to mean that "every sperm is sacred" (sorry if the comment seems flippant - it was a classic phrase that satirically demonstrated the untenable extreme.) Other cultures actually allowed for the "leaving"of unwanted children by the town well... either to die or be taken by others for purposes that did not matter to the parent.

The historical truth is there have always been "unwanted" children - disability - deformity - or other criteria notwithstanding.

As we have "progressed" in our own estimation, we have come to understand that we may not be in full possession of the facts regarding the underpinning biology of awareness, sentience, and ability to perceive pain.

But that fact is not germane to the issue of whether an infant is a person. The law STILL despite the rhetoric of the populist demagogues does NOT afford rights to children. They are "chattle" a form of property and fully under the dominion of the parent. From this perspective we can't even question so-called "honor-killings" which this debate would seem related to, no?

We must have a reckoning that finalizes the idea of the life a person brings forth, and whether we are to protect them as 'persons' or respect the freedom of the progenitors to do as they wish.

I am afraid there is no easy answer in this matter. Across the world we do not share value systems, we do not face the same stresses and conditions as everyone else. It may be easy for one group to say remove the child from the equation now - while it is less painful to face the inevitability - or embark on a campaign to rescue every unborn (and now born) child from a parent who will bring them harm.

Not every nation has a social safety net, nor does every country that has one solidly agree on its application, but I can say that saving every child would be a national enterprise - one which would demand sacrifice of every citizen - even those who have nothing to do with the problem.

Sadly, I know far too many wonderful people, people who made my life and the lives of others better, who improved the human condition, who taught and inspired greatness, peace, and enlightenment, who would have been 'killed as children' under some of the circumstances we are discussing here.

It's a quandary. But don't kid yourselves, this is about the fact that if we do justify these kinds of actions and find them acceptable... stopping because of the 'term' is a false guideline - because we really don't know - nor have we faced the decision about the sanctity of life, or the value of freedom....

What if the title were to say "Killing children no different than abortion".... would that be less outrageous? Yet certain cultures don't seem to mind that notion.

Sigh.... let's hope this doesn;t become a point of political theater... this is too important to leave to the elite.

The path from killing Infants for financial reasons to killing any person deemed a financial burden is a short one.

The Right to Life is in question here.

reply to post by Unity_99


You will never purge the world of what you esteem to be evil. As you begin to, you will simply demonize more things or else risk becoming irrelevant in your vain pursuit. This is the way of "Empire" and it's decay is self-evident. You present yourself as intuitive and spiritual, but your way is the same as the beast. If the Beast sees a sheep stray, he devours it, but the Good Shepherd has compassion on the weak and causes them to either grow or recalls what little they have to be given to the rest of the flock. I greatly encourage you to temper your judgment with grace and consider others better than yourself.

If it comes to financials, a person who doesnt support any banks, money system, pyramid system, copyright or patent, or any form of inequality, nor endorses any form of forcing anyone to work as a slave but only endorses a equality and freedom and abundance run by councils of citizens, half women and half men all the way up, ie me, doesnt equate money with life.

I couldn't care less about what something costs. All that matters is, is there the ability to produce the goods. Can we create houses, and eco farms, if land is free and people are raised from early childhood to know that without volunteering we are cavemen? YES! Can we grow wholesome non GMO foods! YES! Do we have scientific and medical advancements, including plastic surgery! YES!

Problems are solved.

If the system is a problem, then we need to fix it.

Life counts more than any form of commerce.

We live in an abundant universe, not scarsity model.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


I really dont think viability as a threshold for abortion holds merit. In relatively near future, medical technology may very well progress to the stage where every foetus and even embryo or fertilised egg will be viable. Then what, all abortion is banned?

Make no mistake, viability is just a convenient placeholder.

The real question, what inherent internal quality makes human life valuable as a person, is the real deal.

For me, its sentience manifested in foetus as brainwaves in 5th month.

reply to post by Maxmars


You touched on many important issues. I also accept the legal linkage of children to their parents as chattel as intrinsically true, regardless of whatever freedoms/rights a government may think it can "grant."

Our society demonizes such a link, but most people in our culture have a deformed understanding of "ownership" and instead of seeing it as an obligation of responsibility, they see it as a right to be unjust. So then, if ownership is understood in terms of sovereignty regarding treatment of children, but reverence is understood in terms of responsibility, we can find a common moral ground. However, that is not likely.

This issue not only exposes the intellectual lacking of our culture, it also exposes the spiritual diligence lacking in our culture. We must lift each other up rather than tearing down. We cannot smash the death out of our society, as that will only cause everyone to be smashed.

There is a time to put criminals to death, and there is a time to give grace to criminals. Unfortunately, blind justice is entirely incapable of facilitating grace and blind grace is entirely incapable of facilitating judgment.

reply to post by Maxmars


I found this post troublesome.

Talking about other nations, and the diversity of thought or means. The scarsity models have never had to be used in any nation.

We are living in corrupt slave systems and need to correct this.

However, what struck me from this was, with so much diversity of abilities and thoughts, was there an attempt being made to reach a "middle ground", and if so WHY?

Because we have our own nations and laws that protect children at least from birth, and I believe more should be done, in the womb as well.

However, the only reason a middle ground would rear its head is if they were planning a one world dictatorship and planning on bringing down our rights and laws to some base level.

reply to post by Unity_99


Just keep in mind that if you give sovereignty of a child's life to government rather than parents, your children are not truly your children. Naturally, sovereignty lies with the parents of a child. Why would you encourage the adoption of your children by a system of "blind" (as in justice) strangers over your own guidance/control. I treat my son with grace and judgment. I want him to learn and have wisdom, but I also want to see him full of joy.

This is propaganda aimed at the pro-life group to cause a rally against abortions.


Do you not see that?


When they compare an unborn undeveloped fetus to a live kicking and screaming baby they know exactly what reaction they are aiming for.


Which is Pro-Life propaganda, this is aimed at converting pro-choicers to pro-lifers.

Hence why "academia" is important here. Academics know better; so we look for a motive. This one fits like a glove. This is a public opinion push. Nothing more, nothing less -- oh, and the intended goal is to get people to DISAGREE with the article, thus manipulating people to be against their pro-choice stance.


It's quite despicable, really.

This is terrible. They'll be declaring old people non human before too long. Anyone who is disabled and anyone who is a burden to society. Anyone who they choose to say isn't human will be a target. Anyone who disagrees or has a different agenda or doesn't follow them.

reply to post by Laokin


I agree with your personal sentiments, but only when applied to abortions of convenience/poor judgment. However, to deny that there have been situations which rightly call for such a decision is disingenuous. Earlier in the thread I posited that I would consider after-birth human sacrifice if I was living in the wilderness with my family and my child was born with spina bifida. It would certainly grieve me that my child was born with such a malady, but I would make my judgment and continue on, with confidence, ensuring my family's greater good.

So then, while any circumstance can be moral and immoral depending on the particulars, our focus should not be on a one-size-fits-all mentality, our focus should be on fostering gracious judgment in all individuals.

reply to post by Unity_99


I am troubled as well.

I want to live in a world where commerce is not a factor in any personal decision outside business.
I want to live in a world where no one must retreat from a pregnancy for reasons of selfish convenience.
I want to live in a world where anyone can be sure they can prosper with no fear of malice.

I believe firmly in the equality of all people.

So how did we develop this idea that "people" is a status we can deprive of the unborn?

If it is about a biological metric... for example "brainwave activity" ... does that mean stabbing and killing someone who is brain-dead is not murder? If it is not about biology, if it is not about 'measurable science' then are we prepared to admit it's ideological?

I mean not to cast doubts on people's convictions... but call in mind that we must call into the debate the recognition the true nature of our 'assessment.' Let's not pretend that our passion is just reason for anything. Passions come and go.

I wonder what the world would be like if women had the ability to simply not conceive if they didn't want to. Or men could chose whether to disengage the delivery of sperm during intercourse. But that is not how it is.

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by Unity_99

 

Just keep in mind that if you give sovereignty of a child's life to government rather than parents, your children are not truly your children. Naturally, sovereignty lies with the parents of a child. Why would you encourage the adoption of your children by a system of "blind" (as in justice) strangers over your own guidance/control. I treat my son with grace and judgment. I want him to learn and have wisdom, but I also want to see him full of joy.

I don't support adoption over providing base income, if we're still in money, and services (and I would write far better ones than the poor quality ones we get, I'm not conservative), except when the parents want adoption.

I believe its far better to plug people into services and give them lots of breaks and vacations if the child is handicapped, or they're overwhelmed, and even retreats, art, music, inventions whatever tickles their fancy.

I am very much into a highly advanced equal world, that is service oriented. Where dreams come true.

But children are people, they don't live at parents requests.

reply to post by Laokin

This is propaganda aimed at the pro-life group to cause a rally against abortions.

You may be right. But I dont think it is despicable. Quite the opposite, if some views used to justify abortion can be used to justify killing newborns, then by all means, we need to oppose them. And I am saying that as a pro-choice.

As often depicted by media, these people are making a mockery on what liberal or social minded means. It doesnt mean Obama principals. It doesnt mean this kind of idea.

It doesnt mean fascism.

It means wedding freedom to equality, and less corporate laws, that infringe on our rights.

For example, no one will take vitamin C from me, nor has the right to force me to drink pasturized milk, instead of certified farm fresh.

There are so many useless laws that are not what socialisms or liberalism means.

This isn't about human rights. Substantive Equality.

This is the opposite.

I remember lying on a blanket as a baby. The photo had a date that made me 6 weeks old, but my mother told me that was when they took the film in, it really was taken before I was a month old. I remember the color of the blanket, the slope of the grass, the feel of it freshly mowed. And being very afraid of a drop near me, while the picture was taken.

And after that, I remember peas in a high chair, playing the piano with my aunt, well I thought I was contributing. All sorts of things. I was able to tell them where they placed the high chair.

When they test for things with infants and then say, they don't have object permanence until 6 months, they are wrong.

I remembered the drop was somewhat close at under a month. I had object permanence. What I lacked was a voice other than a cry.

I remembered the flash of the camera and was very upset with the man who did that, who is my father, because I thought I was in danger from the drop and wanted him to pick me up. So alot more there than even Object Permanence. They know nothing about babies.

reply to post by Maxmars


I just shared the paper from the source with two people to read. Both became instantly angry and scared at the same time. As they read I watched them reread it to be sure they had just read it right.

You may have a point and I hope it goes that way. I'm not sure my faith in human nature goes that far anymore.

We sat idly by and let them declare an infant in the womb a non-person and sit back while babies are slaughtered by the millions for convenience. Why should we believe that this won't go the same way?

I have a Surgeon in my family who tells me that there is never a reason for late term abortion and that a C-Section is always the best option for the Mother, but knowing that there are still many who want it legal and who are willing to lie to get what they want. Obama for instance. They know it's never the correct medical decision.

I'm afraid I can see this going the same way. It's in our near future. This is just a starting point. Soon it will be kill Grandma as her Medicare is too costly.

reply to post by Unity_99


Read the article and got the sense the experts were not making an argument based so much on scientific study but rather moral philosophy.

Well, I reckon there's no such thing as universal ethics--at least in practice. But these experts' opinion troubles me because it opens dialogue for lawful termination of infants. And as much as I try to restrain my opinions about what people ought and ought not do, this is one instance where I recommend the experts be shipped off to the Moon so we might uphold the attribute of common sense on planet Earth while they ponder the attributes of personhood indefinitely.

reply to post by Kovenov


Well, Blaine91555 has provided links that show this could be more than a random spoken opinion on morality, but an actual trend, in NWO, and its important for people to be very aware of the slippery slopes and do all they can to stop this direction from ever taking off.

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by Laokin

 

I agree with your personal sentiments, but only when applied to abortions of convenience/poor judgment. However, to deny that there have been situations which rightly call for such a decision is disingenuous. Earlier in the thread I posited that I would consider after-birth human sacrifice if I was living in the wilderness with my family and my child was born with spina bifida. It would certainly grieve me that my child was born with such a malady, but I would make my judgment and continue on, with confidence, ensuring my family's greater good.

So then, while any circumstance can be moral and immoral depending on the particulars, our focus should not be on a one-size-fits-all mentality, our focus should be on fostering gracious judgment in all individuals.

My argument isn't one of pro-life or pro-choice. I could care less which side of the fence you are on, my only point was to inject the truth that was missing from this thread, which is the article is written with the intent to piss people off.

It's a pro-life mouth piece designed to piss off pro-choice readers and manipulate them into reconsidering their stance for political gain.

I don't touch the morality argument anymore, I keep that to myself, because I am somewhat like you -- in that, I think circumstances and context matter as much or more than the simple act of procreation.

We kill cats and dogs that are born with defects because we can't sell them, yet -- we keep people born with fatal defects and try to keep them alive as long as possible even though we know they are terminal. Isn't that a form of torture twice over?

What is the point in wasting the resources to do this; especially when we have people with no defects who are dying due to a lack of said resources.


And this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say things like "why care about the sanctity of life, if you are not going to care about those that are actually alive?"


It's easy to stand up for a baby that hasn't got to live yet, but also easy to demonize somebody with liver failure by assuming they are deadbeat drunks. (even if they aren't, it helps people rationalize their intent.)

If life is sacred, deadbeat drunk shall not be damned, his life is sacred. If life is not sacred, when do we draw the line?


It's a remarkably easy question to answer -- when the negative effect is minimized and the positive effect is maximized in a sustainable ratio.


So the question people are sure to ask; which side of the argument am I on? Neither. I think each situation stands on it's own and is different from the rest, so different methodologies must be followed according to the context of said situation.


This means under the right circumstances I am Pro-Life -- also -- under the right circumstances I am Pro-Choice.

There is no right and wrong -- only what is moral and immoral, yet, morality is culturally subjective.... meaning what is indeed moral and immoral is merely a matter of opinion, which necessitates the use of context in determining what to me, personally, is considered moral or immoral.


I.E.

It's not black or white or even shades of grey, it's the entire gradient.