Post-Birth Abortion

[Unkotare]

They don't give a shit about the baby once it is born, and put a fetus over the life of the woman. The church is well known for its anti woman stance.

Do you make this stuff up, or are you for real ?

Its true. The Catholic Church cares not one iota for women or children - except molesting alter boys and covering it up.

You're an idiot. You cling to your prejudice as if your life depended on it.

 

[Noomi]

Do you make this stuff up, or are you for real ?

Its true. The Catholic Church cares not one iota for women or children - except molesting alter boys and covering it up.

You're an idiot. You cling to your prejudice as if your life depended on it.

Do you deny that the Catholic Church covered up the sexual abuse of children?

 

[Emma]

This is why the ******* idiot President OPPOSED the born alive infant protection act. He was concerned that a law that protected a just born "failed abortion" might somehow turn into a slippery slope that would "qualify" the unfettered alleged "right" of women to have abortions on demand.

Yes. That's how much of a sick **** the incumbent is.

We started from the definition of person introduced by Michael Tooley in 1975 and we tried to draw the logical conclusions deriving from this premise. It was meant to be a pure exercise of logic: if X, then Y. We expected that other bioethicists would challenge either the premise or the logical pattern we followed, because this is what happens in academic debates.

---

Laws are not just about rational ethical arguments, because there are many practical, emotional, social aspects that are relevant in policy making (such as respecting the plurality of ethical views, people’s emotional reactions etc). But we are not policy makers, we are philosophers, and we deal with concepts, not with legal policy.

---

However, we also received many emails from people thanking us for raising this debate which is stimulating in an academic sense. These people understood there was no legal implication in the paper. We did not recommend or suggest anything in the paper about what people should do (or about what policies should allow).


We apologise for offence caused by our paper, and we hope this letter helps people to understand the essential distinction between academic language and the misleading media presentation, and between what could be discussed in an academic paper and what could be legally permissible.


BMJ Group blogs: Journal of Medical Ethics blog » Blog Archive » An open letter from Giubilini and Minerva


I would have expected you of all people to understand the difference.

 

[Unkotare]

Its true. The Catholic Church cares not one iota for women or children - except molesting alter boys and covering it up.

You're an idiot. You cling to your prejudice as if your life depended on it.

Do you deny that the Catholic Church covered up the sexual abuse of children?

Do you think you're fooling anyone with this attempt at obfuscation? Even yourself? Do you excuse all forms of prejudice, or just this one you are wallowing in? Are you an honest person, even with yourself? Even part of the time?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Beagle, Zoom -

Can you explain what is "retarded" about Noomi's claim?

Because the idea that the Catholic church is not wildly enthusiastic about women's rights is one some people I suspect a little smarter than you have also put forward.

Or are their female popes now?

The Catholic church charities do much in the way of helping children (and others), try doing a little research. To state that the church 'doesn't give a shit once they're born they only care about the fetus not the woman' is retarded and wrong. For cryin' out loud.

I ain't seen many Catholics going around adopting babies - have you? I have seen a lot of them picketing abortion clinics, though. Funny, you would think these people have jobs, but it seems being a full time Catholic douchebag pays real well.

This is, hands-down, the stupidest frigging thing I've ever heard you say . . . and believe me, that's a high bar to clear.

Maybe you "haven't seen a lot of" stuff because your head's so far up your ass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Look up hydrocephalus and STFU. Fetal head can get so large it can't be born naturally. A c section is required, the cut of which must be deeper, and there is a risk of bleeding, even death. Partial birth abortion eliminates that risk.

Wow. You must have been REALLY popular with the boys when you were a teenager, given your level of gullibility and willingness to believe any damned-fool thing you're told.

Look up "cephalocentesis", then **** off and die.

It's actually kinda funny, watching liberals attempt to cloak their evil in "science", given how pitifully uneducated you people are. Apparently, having your government treat you like a helpless, ignorant child has actually turned you into a helpless, ignorant child.

There is still a risk of heavy bleeding with a C section. The fluid is drained from the head and the fetal head is delivered last. Fetus is born is breech position.

You don't know much about this stuff, do you? But conservatives never do...

What in the bloody hell are you babbling about?! Who said anything about a Caesarian section? And what does draining the excess fluid from the skull have to do with breech births, neither of which have ****-all to do with C-sections?

Seriously, whatever drugs you're doing, you need to taper off of a bit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Its true. The Catholic Church cares not one iota for women or children - except molesting alter boys and covering it up.

You're an idiot. You cling to your prejudice as if your life depended on it.

Do you deny that the Catholic Church covered up the sexual abuse of children?

Do you deny that the Catholic Church is one of the largest private charitable organizations in the world?

 

[Liability]

I don't always agree with those who advocate slaughtering infants,

but when I do: It's Obama!​

To feed my conservative hunger to save taxpayer dollars I say exterminate anything in the oven if you don't break the plane you don't get points. Thank you for being a contestant hopefully better luck next time.

As an abortion cost $1000 and we get to save $250-$375,000 in long-term cost to the taxpayer
I apologize that my conservative pocketbook wants to cut down on expenses
Conservatively speaking

I recognize that you are a vile sick-shit rodent of a "human being."

But thanks all the same for putting into words the way so many of you mentally ill libs think.

Please continue verbalizing (as coherently as you are able -- limited though that may be in your case) the "thinking" that places a dollar value on human life, you depraved diseased evil ************.

 

[Liability]

Beagle, Zoom -

Can you explain what is "retarded" about Noomi's claim?

Because the idea that the Catholic church is not wildly enthusiastic about women's rights is one some people I suspect a little smarter than you have also put forward.

Or are their female popes now?

The Catholic church charities do much in the way of helping children (and others), try doing a little research. To state that the church 'doesn't give a shit once they're born they only care about the fetus not the woman' is retarded and wrong. For cryin' out loud.

I ain't seen many Catholics going around adopting babies - have you? I have seen a lot of them picketing abortion clinics, though. Funny, you would think these people have jobs, but it seems being a full time Catholic douchebag pays real well.

You haven't "seen?"

Holy shit. What a stupid and fully dishonest post.

Are you one of the "geniuses" who can tell the religion of a person just by looking?

Sorry to have to be so blunt, but let's call you what you are. And what you are is a dishonest hack.

 

[Liability]

The Born Alive Infant Protection Act would make a post-birth abortion illegal.

Pres. Obama OPPOSED the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

A post-birth abortion is also known (properly) as "murder."

The President therefore opposed a bill to make the murder of utterly helpless infants illegal.

But liberal Democratics WANT this guy in Office.

Sick shit.

Can you just run us through the medical reasons why this operation might be carried out?

Because I'm not sure why you would oppose something before finding out what the case for it is.

Are you actually that ignorant and slow that YOU are incapable of finding out what is involved with a "post birth" abortion?

Genius: there is NO medical reason for killing the infant once the "abortion has failed" and the child is born alive.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Beagle, Zoom -

Can you explain what is "retarded" about Noomi's claim?

Because the idea that the Catholic church is not wildly enthusiastic about women's rights is one some people I suspect a little smarter than you have also put forward.

Or are their female popes now?

The Catholic church charities do much in the way of helping children (and others), try doing a little research. To state that the church 'doesn't give a shit once they're born they only care about the fetus not the woman' is retarded and wrong. For cryin' out loud.

I ain't seen many Catholics going around adopting babies - have you? I have seen a lot of them picketing abortion clinics, though. Funny, you would think these people have jobs, but it seems being a full time Catholic douchebag pays real well.

Translation: "I don't know shit and refuse to do a little research before spouting off about something I clearly know nothing about, which only makes me look like a complete dumbass". Why'd you even bother responding?

Negged for being an asshole ... can't just discuss can you, have throw in the insults. Typical.

 

[Liability]

This is why the ******* idiot President OPPOSED the born alive infant protection act. He was concerned that a law that protected a just born "failed abortion" might somehow turn into a slippery slope that would "qualify" the unfettered alleged "right" of women to have abortions on demand.

Yes. That's how much of a sick **** the incumbent is.

We started from the definition of person introduced by Michael Tooley in 1975 and we tried to draw the logical conclusions deriving from this premise. It was meant to be a pure exercise of logic: if X, then Y. We expected that other bioethicists would challenge either the premise or the logical pattern we followed, because this is what happens in academic debates.

---

Laws are not just about rational ethical arguments, because there are many practical, emotional, social aspects that are relevant in policy making (such as respecting the plurality of ethical views, people’s emotional reactions etc). But we are not policy makers, we are philosophers, and we deal with concepts, not with legal policy.

---

However, we also received many emails from people thanking us for raising this debate which is stimulating in an academic sense. These people understood there was no legal implication in the paper. We did not recommend or suggest anything in the paper about what people should do (or about what policies should allow).


We apologise for offence caused by our paper, and we hope this letter helps people to understand the essential distinction between academic language and the misleading media presentation, and between what could be discussed in an academic paper and what could be legally permissible.


BMJ Group blogs: Journal of Medical Ethics blog » Blog Archive » An open letter from Giubilini and Minerva


I would have expected you of all people to understand the difference.

Oh emmie, stop.

There is no fine academic distinction involved in defending a post-birth abortion.

A child born alive is a human being. Killing it after it is born alive is therefore murder.

Opposition to any law that would call this kind of murder "murder" and make it illegal is sick.

I expect a base line of honesty as to the premises for any discussion. And I expect no less from you, even if you disappoint on this occasion.

 

[beagle9]

Funny, you would think these people have jobs, but it seems being a full time Catholic douchebag pays real well.

That's funny, because I think the same thing when I see so many riding around in these drug dealer looking cars all day, while I am working my butt off I guess to support it all, so it seems that being a full time drug dealer or salesman there of in the network pays well also in this nation these days.

You know pertty soon that will be all that's left in America, because all these people who do nothing anymore all day, will have finally road the backs of those who do something (like work a job for a living) until we are all dead and gone finally, then what will they do, be asked to support their countrymen and country for a change ? ROTFLMBO is my answer to that one.

 

[Saigon]

The Born Alive Infant Protection Act would make a post-birth abortion illegal.

Pres. Obama OPPOSED the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

A post-birth abortion is also known (properly) as "murder."

The President therefore opposed a bill to make the murder of utterly helpless infants illegal.

But liberal Democratics WANT this guy in Office.

Sick shit.

Can you just run us through the medical reasons why this operation might be carried out?

Because I'm not sure why you would oppose something before finding out what the case for it is.

Are you actually that ignorant and slow that YOU are incapable of finding out what is involved with a "post birth" abortion?

Genius: there is NO medical reason for killing the infant once the "abortion has failed" and the child is born alive.

Liability -

No, I'm not ignorant - I was just curious as to whether you had done your research.

I'm figuring you have no idea why this kind of procedure might be performed, in which case I'm surprised you feel informed enough to make a rational decision on its value.

 

[Liability]

Can you just run us through the medical reasons why this operation might be carried out?

Because I'm not sure why you would oppose something before finding out what the case for it is.

Are you actually that ignorant and slow that YOU are incapable of finding out what is involved with a "post birth" abortion?

Genius: there is NO medical reason for killing the infant once the "abortion has failed" and the child is born alive.

Liability -

No, I'm not ignorant - I was just curious as to whether you had done your research.

I'm figuring you have no idea why this kind of procedure might be performed, in which case I'm surprised you feel informed enough to make a rational decision on its value.

I cannot quite see why anybody should care about your impressions, guesses, feeling and other displays of ignorance.

I also don't give a **** WHAT is involved in the "procedure." It isn't even just one procedure, so maybe you need to elevate your game a bit.

The issue is not what led to the child being born. The ONLY question is whether it WAS born or not.

Spin all you want.

 

[Emma]

Oh emmie, stop.

There is no fine academic distinction involved in defending a post-birth abortion.

A child born alive is a human being. Killing it after it is born alive is therefore murder.

Opposition to any law that would call this kind of murder "murder" and make it illegal is sick.

I expect a base line of honesty as to the premises for any discussion. And I expect no less from you, even if you disappoint on this occasion.

Debates such as this in bioethics are designed to push the boundaries and make people think beyond the obvious. These people were not advocating murder, as they described they were taking a particular premise to its logical conclusion. Bioethics is a fascinating field, and the issues it raises more often than not will set you back on your heels --- which, in my opinion, it's designed to do. Medical and nursing ethics have guided and enhanced my practice for nearly 30 years. Discussing and debating these issues aren't inherently evil or 'sick'.

 

[Liability]

Oh emmie, stop.

There is no fine academic distinction involved in defending a post-birth abortion.

A child born alive is a human being. Killing it after it is born alive is therefore murder.

Opposition to any law that would call this kind of murder "murder" and make it illegal is sick.

I expect a base line of honesty as to the premises for any discussion. And I expect no less from you, even if you disappoint on this occasion.

Debates such as this in bioethics are designed to push the boundaries and make people think beyond the obvious. These people were not advocating murder, as they described they were taking a particular premise to its logical conclusion. Bioethics is a fascinating field, and the issues it raises more often than not will set you back on your heels --- which, in my opinion, it's designed to do. Medical and nursing ethics have guided and enhanced my practice for nearly 30 years. Discussing and debating these issues aren't inherently evil or 'sick'.

Nonsense.

Voting on a bill (or just verbalizing one's "position" on it) about a prohibition against post-birth 'abortion" is not an ethics discussion.

ANY position that allows for the murder of a human being, especially a helpless newborn infant, absolutely is evil.

 

[Emma]

Nonsense.

Voting on a bill (or just verbalizing one's "position" on it) about a prohibition against post-birth 'abortion" is not an ethics discussion.

ANY position that allows for the murder of a human being, especially a helpless newborn infant, absolutely is evil.

Voting on a bill?

I'm talking about a published debate between bioethicists on a specific premise put forth 40 years ago by Tooley regarding 'personhood'. I know you know the difference between what they did and actually advocating for murder.

 

[AmyNation]

Oh emmie, stop.

There is no fine academic distinction involved in defending a post-birth abortion.

A child born alive is a human being. Killing it after it is born alive is therefore murder.

Opposition to any law that would call this kind of murder "murder" and make it illegal is sick.

I expect a base line of honesty as to the premises for any discussion. And I expect no less from you, even if you disappoint on this occasion.

Debates such as this in bioethics are designed to push the boundaries and make people think beyond the obvious. These people were not advocating murder, as they described they were taking a particular premise to its logical conclusion. Bioethics is a fascinating field, and the issues it raises more often than not will set you back on your heels --- which, in my opinion, it's designed to do. Medical and nursing ethics have guided and enhanced my practice for nearly 30 years. Discussing and debating these issues aren't inherently evil or 'sick'.

 

[Liability]

Nonsense.

Voting on a bill (or just verbalizing one's "position" on it) about a prohibition against post-birth 'abortion" is not an ethics discussion.

ANY position that allows for the murder of a human being, especially a helpless newborn infant, absolutely is evil.

Voting on a bill?

I'm talking about a published debate between bioethicists on a specific premise put forth 40 years ago by Tooley regarding 'personhood'. I know you know the difference between what they did and actually advocating for murder.

I can't help it if you are attempting to discuss a subject I haven't discussed and then argue against what you imagine I might say on your topic.

Again, the President -- before he got elected -- OPPOSED the born alive infant protection act.

THAT is the only topic I have been discussing.