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.

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?

In most states, late term abortions are limited, which would limit the number of late term abortions that occur.

As for emergency health concerns being different from a whim, well, because an emergency health concern would place the pregnancy in a situation where the mother's life is being threatened by the pregnancy. It makes no sense to let her die or let her endure a heightened medical risk of dying, which will often result in the death of the fetus too.

The issue with the abortions due to the mother choosing the sex of the child, to me, sounds weird because most of the pro-abortion folks use an argument of "my body, my choice." Well, if that is accepted, then the fact that a mother is making an unpalatable choice doesn't logical undermine the "my body, my choice" argument. I find it incongruous that a woman could say "I have a right to an abortion because it is my body and nobody has the right to tell me what to do with my body," but then say "...well...except if I think you're making a sexist choice, then it's not YOUR choice to do what YOU want with YOUR body...you have to do it for the right reasons...like...no reason at all, just because you don't feel like carrying it, whatever it is...if you decide you don't feel like carrying a male child, then, well, you're going to be forced to carry it until you straighten out your thinking...." That was my point regarding the sexist abortions.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

I see it more like a choice between losing two lives, or losing one. Analogy: Conjoined twins are born, and both are breathing. If they are left to remain together, the medical prognosis is death very soon, due to the way they are conjoined. If they are separated, one will surely die, but the other will most likely live on. What do you do? Is it murder to separate them, knowing one will die? Is it murder NOT to separate them, knowing both will die?

In such a situation, one must make the best of it.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

One very simple solution is to posit that it is nobody else's business whether a person is disabled or not disabled. To me, the very idea that the State would even have the power to order the death of a person because of their disability seems to me to be a monumentally totalitarian concept. I find it unthinkable, but it winds up being a rational outgrowth of extreme collectivization. Once a person's existence can be demonstrated to be an accounting drain on "society," then the State DOES have an interest in minimizing those expenses, and it can even be seen as a moral imperative that a person stop utilizing extra resources because of the harm being done to society.

The old and the invalid ought to go to "go home" (a la Soylent Green).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This thread makes me hungry.

[Coito ergo sum]

This thread makes me hungry.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This thread makes me hungry.

I usually buy Crunchy Frog.

[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.

One very simple solution is to posit that it is nobody else's business whether a person is disabled or not disabled. To me, the very idea that the State would even have the power to order the death of a person because of their disability seems to me to be a monumentally totalitarian concept. I find it unthinkable, but it winds up being a rational outgrowth of extreme collectivization. Once a person's existence can be demonstrated to be an accounting drain on "society," then the State DOES have an interest in minimizing those expenses, and it can even be seen as a moral imperative that a person stop utilizing extra resources because of the harm being done to society.

The old and the invalid ought to go to "go home" (a la Soylent Green).

It's nothing to do with the State. Andrew was arguing it from an individualist point of view to begin with. And it's nothing to do with collectivism either, however extreme. Because a collectivist society can still be fundamentally based on a constitution of rights, among many other possibilities. It's the utilitarian argument that has the problem, and specifically only when using a model that fails to value the benefit of caring for others, which is frankly a rookie mistake.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

One very simple solution is to posit that it is nobody else's business whether a person is disabled or not disabled. To me, the very idea that the State would even have the power to order the death of a person because of their disability seems to me to be a monumentally totalitarian concept. I find it unthinkable, but it winds up being a rational outgrowth of extreme collectivization. Once a person's existence can be demonstrated to be an accounting drain on "society," then the State DOES have an interest in minimizing those expenses, and it can even be seen as a moral imperative that a person stop utilizing extra resources because of the harm being done to society.

The old and the invalid ought to go to "go home" (a la Soylent Green).

It's nothing to do with the State. Andrew was arguing it from an individualist point of view to begin with. And it's nothing to do with collectivism either, however extreme. Because a collectivist society can still be fundamentally based on a constitution of rights, among many other possibilities. It's the utilitarian argument that has the problem, and specifically only when using a model that fails to value the benefit of caring for others, which is frankly a rookie mistake.

It is about the State, because it's the State doing the killing. Unless we're talking about private individuals or groups deciding for themselves which other private individuals or groups are worthy of living...

[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?

In most states, late term abortions are limited, which would limit the number of late term abortions that occur.

As for emergency health concerns being different from a whim, well, because an emergency health concern would place the pregnancy in a situation where the mother's life is being threatened by the pregnancy. It makes no sense to let her die or let her endure a heightened medical risk of dying, which will often result in the death of the fetus too.

The issue with the abortions due to the mother choosing the sex of the child, to me, sounds weird because most of the pro-abortion folks use an argument of "my body, my choice." Well, if that is accepted, then the fact that a mother is making an unpalatable choice doesn't logical undermine the "my body, my choice" argument. I find it incongruous that a woman could say "I have a right to an abortion because it is my body and nobody has the right to tell me what to do with my body," but then say "...well...except if I think you're making a sexist choice, then it's not YOUR choice to do what YOU want with YOUR body...you have to do it for the right reasons...like...no reason at all, just because you don't feel like carrying it, whatever it is...if you decide you don't feel like carrying a male child, then, well, you're going to be forced to carry it until you straighten out your thinking...." That was my point regarding the sexist abortions.

I agree. I'm not sure if I'm getting... is that different from what I'd said? Or I'd said you said?

Also, re- late-term abortions-- they are far, far more dangerous, generally, for the woman (and obviously for the baby). Physically dangerous, I mean (although I don't have figures to cite for that.) So they may be limited for that reason, too.

[PsychoSerenity]

It is about the State, because it's the State doing the killing. Unless we're talking about private individuals or groups deciding for themselves which other private individuals or groups are worthy of living...

Well it's not the State deciding which babies get aborted, it it? That's where this discussion started from.

[Coito ergo sum]

It is about the State, because it's the State doing the killing. Unless we're talking about private individuals or groups deciding for themselves which other private individuals or groups are worthy of living...

Well it's not the State deciding which babies get aborted, it it? That's where this discussion started from.

No, but I was responding to the bit about the disabled. I did not think you were referring to one individual going out and exercising their individual right to choose killing disabled people....

[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.

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?

In most states, late term abortions are limited, which would limit the number of late term abortions that occur.

As for emergency health concerns being different from a whim, well, because an emergency health concern would place the pregnancy in a situation where the mother's life is being threatened by the pregnancy. It makes no sense to let her die or let her endure a heightened medical risk of dying, which will often result in the death of the fetus too.

The issue with the abortions due to the mother choosing the sex of the child, to me, sounds weird because most of the pro-abortion folks use an argument of "my body, my choice." Well, if that is accepted, then the fact that a mother is making an unpalatable choice doesn't logical undermine the "my body, my choice" argument. I find it incongruous that a woman could say "I have a right to an abortion because it is my body and nobody has the right to tell me what to do with my body," but then say "...well...except if I think you're making a sexist choice, then it's not YOUR choice to do what YOU want with YOUR body...you have to do it for the right reasons...like...no reason at all, just because you don't feel like carrying it, whatever it is...if you decide you don't feel like carrying a male child, then, well, you're going to be forced to carry it until you straighten out your thinking...." That was my point regarding the sexist abortions.

I agree. I'm not sure if I'm getting... is that different from what I'd said? Or I'd said you said?

I was just trying to answer the question you posed to me. If I still haven't, then I'll try again.

Also, re- late-term abortions-- they are far, far more dangerous, generally, for the woman (and obviously for the baby). Physically dangerous, I mean (although I don't have figures to cite for that.) So they may be limited for that reason, too.

Re late termers, I just can't get around the fact that it's basically a pree-mee. So, my reaction is, why not just C-Section it, and put it up for adoption?

[PsychoSerenity]

No, but I was responding to the bit about the disabled. I did not think you were referring to one individual going out and exercising their individual right to choose killing disabled people....

Well I think the decision of whether they should be killed or kept alive was still meant to rest with the individual family or carers, assuming they could afford to do so. Andrew's initial argument was that it was better for society for his taxes not to be used to keep alive disabled babies if they were never going to be financially productive. I then tried to show that such an argument, among other problems, would also have to apply to people who became disabled and unproductive at a later stage.

[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?

In most states, late term abortions are limited, which would limit the number of late term abortions that occur.

As for emergency health concerns being different from a whim, well, because an emergency health concern would place the pregnancy in a situation where the mother's life is being threatened by the pregnancy. It makes no sense to let her die or let her endure a heightened medical risk of dying, which will often result in the death of the fetus too.

The issue with the abortions due to the mother choosing the sex of the child, to me, sounds weird because most of the pro-abortion folks use an argument of "my body, my choice." Well, if that is accepted, then the fact that a mother is making an unpalatable choice doesn't logical undermine the "my body, my choice" argument. I find it incongruous that a woman could say "I have a right to an abortion because it is my body and nobody has the right to tell me what to do with my body," but then say "...well...except if I think you're making a sexist choice, then it's not YOUR choice to do what YOU want with YOUR body...you have to do it for the right reasons...like...no reason at all, just because you don't feel like carrying it, whatever it is...if you decide you don't feel like carrying a male child, then, well, you're going to be forced to carry it until you straighten out your thinking...." That was my point regarding the sexist abortions.

I agree. I'm not sure if I'm getting... is that different from what I'd said? Or I'd said you said?

I was just trying to answer the question you posed to me. If I still haven't, then I'll try again.

Also, re- late-term abortions-- they are far, far more dangerous, generally, for the woman (and obviously for the baby). Physically dangerous, I mean (although I don't have figures to cite for that.) So they may be limited for that reason, too.

Re late termers, I just can't get around the fact that it's basically a pree-mee. So, my reaction is, why not just C-Section it, and put it up for adoption?

Bikini season?

[Coito ergo sum]

Bikini season?

Pics. Now.