Killing Babies?

[Audley Strange]

There are all sorts of things that can make someone a horrible person that aren't against the law.

I agree, like allowing a being to exist in a state of agony and torment either or both physically and mentally just so someone can feel good about themselves and thats not even getting into the sense of expectations they have that everyone else should find their sickening cruelty somehow noble.

[Coito ergo sum]

If I knocked a girl up and the tests came back saying the child hadn't developed properly and would be deformed, so we decided to abort based on that, are we horrible people?

Yes, but if you lie and say you did it for no reason at all or because you just weren't ready to be parents, then it would be fine.

Oh, and by the way, as a male, the only acceptable opinion for you to have is "I support her in any decision that she makes. If she has the abortion, I will tell her how wonderful and brave she is. And, if she has the baby, I will pay for it with a smile on my face for the next 18 years, minimum."

Well, for me it comes down to location location location.

When the baby is inside the woman, she can kick it out, even if that means the baby dies, because each of us are masters of our domain. Our bodies, that is. No one has the right to dominate our bodies so completely without our consent.

Once the baby is no longer inside the woman, bodily autonomy is no longer a concern. The charges would shift from self-defense to murder in the first degree.

Now, I will say that I would think a woman who decided on a lark to abort an eight-month child is also a horrible person. But, particularly since in certain cases there are legitimate heath reasons to have an abortion that late in the game, I would not want my opinion to become public policy towards late term abortions.

There are all sorts of things that can make someone a horrible person that aren't against the law.

So then I assume that since a woman should have all legal power over whether to have the baby, that then the full legal responsibility of caring for that child should also fall to her.

That's a separate issue from her bodily autonomy.

And, it is an issue discussed in depth on one of the abortion threads.

The basic gist of it is that regardless of who makes what decision, once the baby is born, it must be supported. From the perspective of the rest of us, if Seth knocks up girl X, then it is Seth and girl X's responsibility. It's still Seth's child, whether he wanted it or not.

While it may feel unfair to Seth because the last clear chance to avoid birth was in the power of girl X -- that doesn't change the fact that a parent has the obligation to support his or her child.

Take the example of a botched abortion where the child is born alive and for one reason or another survives. It's still the mother and father's responsibility to care for and support that child, even though they were trying to abort it.

[eXcommunicate]

No, only healthy white male babies would be killed indiscriminately. Any others would be subject to requests which would go through the Ministry of Proper Thoughts and Reasons.

Persecution complex, Coito? Poor downtrodden white male, you.

[PsychoSerenity]

This is n't about libertarianism. Also those public sector things I am forced to pay for, blah, blah, blah, yeah I pay taxes. Special Ed Steve, our hypothetical severely mental handicapped person, does not, can not, and never will. So even if you approach this from a "what's best for society" approach it still holds.

Well that very much depends on how you measure what is best for society. I imagine that measuring it purely with taxes is likely to give results that are quite at odds with most people's values.

Again with the, "It depends..." and contemplating about what other people's views might be. How about you put a little skin in the game and say what your position is?

Because I don't always consider my position to be particularly important, and that doesn't stop me from pointing out that your argument based on "what's best for society" comes with some rather large assumptions. You don't have to answer those assumptions if you don't want to, but there's no point in trying to get at me for pointing them out.

[Drewish]

This is n't about libertarianism. Also those public sector things I am forced to pay for, blah, blah, blah, yeah I pay taxes. Special Ed Steve, our hypothetical severely mental handicapped person, does not, can not, and never will. So even if you approach this from a "what's best for society" approach it still holds.

Well that very much depends on how you measure what is best for society. I imagine that measuring it purely with taxes is likely to give results that are quite at odds with most people's values.

Again with the, "It depends..." and contemplating about what other people's views might be. How about you put a little skin in the game and say what your position is?

Because I don't always consider my position to be particularly important, and that doesn't stop me from pointing out that your argument based on "what's best for society" comes with some rather large assumptions. You don't have to answer those assumptions if you don't want to, but there's no point in trying to get at me for pointing them out.

So please, point out to me in what way having more human vegetables helps humanity. Otherwise you're just posturing.

[eXcommunicate]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

[kiki5711]

I agree with the law against abortion after 5 months. I am "PRO CHOICE" but the woman should be responsible enough to know before her third trimester if she wants to abort the baby or not. There are tests done and infromation provided. Unless it's found later that the woman or the child is in danger or child beig born with terrible disfiguredment or with an incurable disease.

If a woman is so irriesponsible that she ignores the pregnancy until she finally realized her stomach growing, it's sickens me. I considered abortion with my third pregnancy due to my age and the possibility of some disformation if born. I knew I coudln't deal with such a child being born, and letting them live and suffer.

Women need to be responsible with their choices or their choices will be taken away.

[PsychoSerenity]

This is n't about libertarianism. Also those public sector things I am forced to pay for, blah, blah, blah, yeah I pay taxes. Special Ed Steve, our hypothetical severely mental handicapped person, does not, can not, and never will. So even if you approach this from a "what's best for society" approach it still holds.

Well that very much depends on how you measure what is best for society. I imagine that measuring it purely with taxes is likely to give results that are quite at odds with most people's values.

Again with the, "It depends..." and contemplating about what other people's views might be. How about you put a little skin in the game and say what your position is?

Because I don't always consider my position to be particularly important, and that doesn't stop me from pointing out that your argument based on "what's best for society" comes with some rather large assumptions. You don't have to answer those assumptions if you don't want to, but there's no point in trying to get at me for pointing them out.

So please, point out to me in what way having more human vegetables helps humanity. Otherwise you're just posturing.

Well I see you've travelled from talking about "a child born with downs" through "severely mental handicapped" to "human vegetables", and I've already said this isn't a black and white issue.

But generally speaking, people are happy to care for those in need because it feels good to do, and people feel more secure in a society with a decent level of care because it gives them confidence that if they or their loved ones ever find themselves in need, they can trust that they will also be taken care of. I would say that extra happinesses and trust within a society makes that society better.

[Drewish]

So a placebo effect.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, only healthy white male babies would be killed indiscriminately. Any others would be subject to requests which would go through the Ministry of Proper Thoughts and Reasons.

Persecution complex, Coito? Poor downtrodden white male, you.

No, just making a funny -- it seems that people are sensitive to "discrimination" issues that the idea of killing babies is relatively acceptable...killing babies with Down's syndrome, though, that makes it wrong... lol

[Drewish]

No, only healthy white male babies would be killed indiscriminately. Any others would be subject to requests which would go through the Ministry of Proper Thoughts and Reasons.

Persecution complex, Coito? Poor downtrodden white male, you.

No, just making a funny -- it seems that people are sensitive to "discrimination" issues that the idea of killing babies is relatively acceptable...killing babies with Down's syndrome, though, that makes it wrong... lol

There are better examples. Like people who think that abortion is fine, unless it's done for sex selection (because there are cultures where having a son is preferable to having a daughter). Because you know, then it's not a woman's rights issue to protect abortion rights, but to protect the unborn girl, who isn't a girl that's worth protecting, just a fetus, unless the abortion is done for sexual selection purposes.

[PsychoSerenity]

So a placebo effect.

Um.. no?

[Coito ergo sum]

No, only healthy white male babies would be killed indiscriminately. Any others would be subject to requests which would go through the Ministry of Proper Thoughts and Reasons.

Persecution complex, Coito? Poor downtrodden white male, you.

No, just making a funny -- it seems that people are sensitive to "discrimination" issues that the idea of killing babies is relatively acceptable...killing babies with Down's syndrome, though, that makes it wrong... lol

There are better examples. Like people who think that abortion is fine, unless it's done for sex selection (because there are cultures where having a son is preferable to having a daughter). Because you know, then it's not a woman's rights issue to protect abortion rights, but to protect the unborn girl, who isn't a girl that's worth protecting, just a fetus, unless the abortion is done for sexual selection purposes.

That was the point I was making.

But, I'm with kiki, who I think posted that she was fine with abortion through about 5 months. Me too. I'm in the compromise group.

I just haven't been able to wrap my arms around the 7th or 8th month abortion....that's killing a pre-mee. How can that be gotten 'round?

[Drewish]

So a placebo effect.

Um.. no?

Look it would benefit those particular people who are given help, but those are a small group. That hardly represents being good for society as a whole. However you stated that there was a feeling of security involved that would then apply beyond those people. Now I assume you are tying care for those who become disabled with the birth defect afflicted we are discussing, and it seems like you're tying this to some kind of welfare state and security net at large. I fail to see why that needs to be the case though. This particular aspect of a security net (basically saying that society, via government, will care for every and any unwanted child for whatever reason) is the particular part that matters here. It does not follow that it is tied to any other aspect of the social safety nets, and so the notion of, "protecting them self or their loved ones," doesn't really play a role unless you consider as yet unborn babies to be loved ones. So the benefit of, "feeling good about themselves," that you refer to is the only remaining gain for society at large, which is a total placebo.

[Drewish]

No, only healthy white male babies would be killed indiscriminately. Any others would be subject to requests which would go through the Ministry of Proper Thoughts and Reasons.

Persecution complex, Coito? Poor downtrodden white male, you.

No, just making a funny -- it seems that people are sensitive to "discrimination" issues that the idea of killing babies is relatively acceptable...killing babies with Down's syndrome, though, that makes it wrong... lol

There are better examples. Like people who think that abortion is fine, unless it's done for sex selection (because there are cultures where having a son is preferable to having a daughter). Because you know, then it's not a woman's rights issue to protect abortion rights, but to protect the unborn girl, who isn't a girl that's worth protecting, just a fetus, unless the abortion is done for sexual selection purposes.

That was the point I was making.

But, I'm with kiki, who I think posted that she was fine with abortion through about 5 months. Me too. I'm in the compromise group.

I just haven't been able to wrap my arms around the 7th or 8th month abortion....that's killing a pre-mee. How can that be gotten 'round?

Are you asking generally, or asking me? I'm not going to have an answer there because I'm okay with 7th or 8th month abortions.