Killing Babies?

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't know how one can be "okay" with 7th or 8th month abortions. I think Roe v Wade hit the nail pretty well on the head, and by the third trimester, there is a strong state interest in protecting the innoocenet life.

[Drewish]

I don't see human life as having any sort of magical value. And I don't see how saying that an unborn child doesn't qualify as a person would destroy the foundation of society or undermine the law. I don't see what this 'interest' is other than the echoes of a bronze age text and arbitrary social conditioning.

[hadespussercats]

I'm so glad you were able to avoid stooping to ad hominem attacks and non sequiturs.

That was an ad hominem attack?

How so?

Haven't you been endorsing killing people that no one wants to support financially?

Besides, I was making a point about assumptions, including yours. I guess you missed it.

[amused]

When you look into the past of the most rabid anti-choice "activists" there is frequently a childhood of abuse and the attendant destruction of self-worth. Desperate to rebuild their self-worth, they adopt the 'save the baby humans' campaign as a way to numb their own pain.

[MrJonno]

I don't know how one can be "okay" with 7th or 8th month abortions. I think Roe v Wade hit the nail pretty well on the head, and by the third trimester, there is a strong state interest in protecting the innoocenet life.

I assume this are pretty rare (only allowable in the case of serious handicap in the UK), and most hospitals will allow seriously ill babies die after birth if they think its in their interest

[hadespussercats]

I don't know how one can be "okay" with 7th or 8th month abortions. I think Roe v Wade hit the nail pretty well on the head, and by the third trimester, there is a strong state interest in protecting the innoocenet life.

I don't think it happens often enough to be such a focus of ethical discussions. At least, not at a whim of the pregnant woman.

My understanding is that late-term abortions generally happen when there is a revelation about some serious fetal malformation, or because the mother has HELLP syndrome or some other life-threatening concern that requires getting the child out at all costs, including killing it in the process.

But I recall your saying, in the thread about aborting fetuses of the wrong sex, that if abortions are okay then they should be okay for any reason. That being the case, how do you account for emergency health concerns but exclude whimsical last-minute changes of heart?

[hadespussercats]

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.

Are you saying that's what I want?

or are you just using my statement as a leaping-off point for your own?

If it's the former, there's been a misunderstanding somewhere.

[PsychoSerenity]

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.

Feeling good about caring for others is not a placebo, it's a natural part of humanity and an important part of what makes society.

Yes people want to know there will be adequate care for their unborn babies.

And yes, I am tying in people born with disabilities with those who develop them later on. Why shouldn't the safety net apply to them as well? The only thing you've got singling them out is their inability to pay towards it.

But if you're going to argue on a utilitarian basis with a "what's best for society" approach, without acknowledging the general good of caring for others where possible, with the basis for whether people get support being if they can or have contributed, then it doesn't make a difference whether your "hypothetical severely mental handicapped person" was born that way and will never pay taxes, or developed the condition aged 15 and will never pay taxes, or developed it at 25 but hadn't paid quite enough to have been worth it. You've also got to deny support to those who developed the problem later in life who have always been poor. It all implies that people only pay taxes for this safety net for selfish reasons, and it starts to not resemble a safety net at all.

As far as I can see it, you've either got to acknowledge the value of caring for people no mater what they can contribute, or go back to a non-utilitarian argument (which I'm sure you'd prefer), or start killing off the weak, left right and centre.

Edit: And that's all I say on that for now because I just spent about an hour thinking about it, and while I do love working through the philosophy, I also have other things to be getting on with.

[Tero]

Babies can be useful. Here is a demolition team.
http://www.hs.fi/kuvat/iso_webkuva/1329103536196.gif

[Drewish]

As far as I can see it, you've either got to acknowledge the value of caring for people no mater what they can contribute, or go back to a non-utilitarian argument (which I'm sure you'd prefer), or start killing off the weak, left right and centre.

Awesome statement. I wholeheartedly agree. It's care for the needy, let people fend for themselves, or kill the weak. There really isn't any other option. Though we're probably going to disagree on which is the best option.

However, if you're going to care for the weak, and consider a late term abortion to be killing a human being, then making an exception for the woman's health is a monstrous avocation for murder.

[PsychoSerenity]

Oh I think there are other options, I just can't see any from a utilitarian argument that make a distinction between killing disabled babies and killing disabled adults. - and I don't precisely know where I would come down looking at all the possibilities.

[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.

Are you saying that's what I want?

or are you just using my statement as a leaping-off point for your own?

If it's the former, there's been a misunderstanding somewhere.

No no Hades, I'm not saying that's what you want, I'm saying that if killing a live baby automatically (as you suggest) makes one a horrible person then so is sustaining the lives of people with no quality of value of life, who are essentially just beings of suffering, just to appease some archaic and arbitrary sense of morality. In fact I would possibly suggest that anyone who terminated their child post partum would feel like a horrible person, whereas those monsters who keeps them living for their own entertainment actually think they are good and noble and worthy people and we treat them like such rather than revile them and what's more they expect everyone to appreciate their burdens.

Now, I am not talking about people with slight handicaps which might decrease their quality of life. I'm talking about the cases where the brain has not formed properly so they are in a vegetative state or the spine is so misshapen that ever second they endure is pain.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I dreamed about this thread last night.

[Tyrannical]

I just wish it was easier to abort post-birth undesirables, for the greater good of course.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I just wish it was easier to abort post-birth undesirables, for the greater good of course.

Retroactive birth control is a very tempting option at times.