After birth abortions!?

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess people who scoff at the idea that fetus's have no rights would have no problem believing babies have none either. Yet there are idiots that think that slippery slopes never happen.

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

More here.

Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After-Birth Abortions | TheBlaze.com

I hope some idiot comes in here and tells me no one is pro abortion

 

[Caroljo]

Interesting....I'm speachless.

 

[saveliberty]

Sounds like its time to fire a bunch the Ethicists. Must have slept through a few classes or just screwed the prof for a 4.0

 

[California Girl]

I had not read the full research until you linked to a source that actually provided it... there is another thread on it but that OP chose to present a media report instead of the actual research.

Having read it, I do find it quite disturbing... while I can - to some degree - understand the case where a child is born severely disabled or something goes horrifically wrong during delivery... I would still disagree with it, but at least the argument is an understandable one. But their conclusions seriously sicken me.

Conclusions

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

Two considerations need to be added.

First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

The term 'after birth abortion' is just window dressing for what it really is.... infanticide... or... if you prefer.... pre-meditated murder.

 

[saveliberty]

Yep, I await the eventual party who will attempt a defense of this study.

 

[Avatar4321]

The problem with the ethics is it really is a slippery slope.

 

[jillian]

*yawn*

 

[The T]

I had not read the full research until you linked to a source that actually provided it... there is another thread on it but that OP chose to present a media report instead of the actual research.

Having read it, I do find it quite disturbing... while I can - to some degree - understand the case where a child is born severely disabled or something goes horrifically wrong during delivery... I would still disagree with it, but at least the argument is an understandable one. But their conclusions seriously sicken me.

Conclusions

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

Two considerations need to be added.

First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

The term 'after birth abortion' is just window dressing for what it really is.... infanticide... or... if you prefer.... pre-meditated murder.

And Obama was all for it as a State Senator...

When Obama Voted For Infanticide

Obama and the Statist Democrats are going to rue the day they brought this up in an election year in an effort to take the eyes off of his abysmal record against the American people as he wages class warfare, and ObamaCare is at low approval.

 

[francoHFW]

Pure Beckcrappe for the dupes...next!

 

[Intense]

I had not read the full research until you linked to a source that actually provided it... there is another thread on it but that OP chose to present a media report instead of the actual research.

Having read it, I do find it quite disturbing... while I can - to some degree - understand the case where a child is born severely disabled or something goes horrifically wrong during delivery... I would still disagree with it, but at least the argument is an understandable one. But their conclusions seriously sicken me.

Conclusions

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

Two considerations need to be added.

First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

The term 'after birth abortion' is just window dressing for what it really is.... infanticide... or... if you prefer.... pre-meditated murder.

Either Term works fine for me. Infanticide, Premeditated Murder. God Forbid Someone should consider giving the Baby up for Adoption. What kind of a Sick Fuck councils Infanticide because a Child might conflict with your lifestyle, your gym schedule, or those so hard to get spa appointments. Let me consult with my Accountant, before I decide the Life or Death of My Child. What are we coming to?

 

[ABikerSailor]

I had not read the full research until you linked to a source that actually provided it... there is another thread on it but that OP chose to present a media report instead of the actual research.

Having read it, I do find it quite disturbing... while I can - to some degree - understand the case where a child is born severely disabled or something goes horrifically wrong during delivery... I would still disagree with it, but at least the argument is an understandable one. But their conclusions seriously sicken me.

Conclusions

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

Two considerations need to be added.

First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

The term 'after birth abortion' is just window dressing for what it really is.... infanticide... or... if you prefer.... pre-meditated murder.

And Obama was all for it as a State Senator...

When Obama Voted For Infanticide

Obama and the Statist Democrats are going to rue the day they brought this up in an election year in an effort to take the eyes off of his abysmal record against the American people as he wages class warfare, and ObamaCare is at low approval.

I see now where you get the most of your partisan hack talking points come from.

A GOP blog. Nice.

 

[saveliberty]

This is how liberals are going to get their kids to pay for their retirement. Retroactive abortions at any age. Don't make me sign this release Junior!

 

[The T]

I had not read the full research until you linked to a source that actually provided it... there is another thread on it but that OP chose to present a media report instead of the actual research.

Having read it, I do find it quite disturbing... while I can - to some degree - understand the case where a child is born severely disabled or something goes horrifically wrong during delivery... I would still disagree with it, but at least the argument is an understandable one. But their conclusions seriously sicken me.



The term 'after birth abortion' is just window dressing for what it really is.... infanticide... or... if you prefer.... pre-meditated murder.

And Obama was all for it as a State Senator...

When Obama Voted For Infanticide

Obama and the Statist Democrats are going to rue the day they brought this up in an election year in an effort to take the eyes off of his abysmal record against the American people as he wages class warfare, and ObamaCare is at low approval.

I see now where you get the most of your partisan hack talking points come from.

A GOP blog. Nice.

Refute the points or STFU.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Pure Beckcrappe for the dupes...next!

Somebody is definitely duped. If you want to know who look in a mirror.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I had not read the full research until you linked to a source that actually provided it... there is another thread on it but that OP chose to present a media report instead of the actual research.

Having read it, I do find it quite disturbing... while I can - to some degree - understand the case where a child is born severely disabled or something goes horrifically wrong during delivery... I would still disagree with it, but at least the argument is an understandable one. But their conclusions seriously sicken me.

Conclusions

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

Two considerations need to be added.

First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

The term 'after birth abortion' is just window dressing for what it really is.... infanticide... or... if you prefer.... pre-meditated murder.

I always try to cite the article when I talk about things like this because I want to know someone is not taking it out of context.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I had not read the full research until you linked to a source that actually provided it... there is another thread on it but that OP chose to present a media report instead of the actual research.

Having read it, I do find it quite disturbing... while I can - to some degree - understand the case where a child is born severely disabled or something goes horrifically wrong during delivery... I would still disagree with it, but at least the argument is an understandable one. But their conclusions seriously sicken me.

Conclusions

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

Two considerations need to be added.

First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

The term 'after birth abortion' is just window dressing for what it really is.... infanticide... or... if you prefer.... pre-meditated murder.

Either Term works fine for me. Infanticide, Premeditated Murder. God Forbid Someone should consider giving the Baby up for Adoption. What kind of a Sick Fuck councils Infanticide because a Child might conflict with your lifestyle, your gym schedule, or those so hard to get spa appointments. Let me consult with my Accountant, before I decide the Life or Death of My Child. What are we coming to?

They actually addressed the issue of adoption, and concluded it was better to kill the baby if the mother would be upset by an abortion.