Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**biccat**

Jubear wrote:Cant force a lass to make decisions about her own body. If she decides to keep it then its our business not before tho.

But she can force you to support that child for the rest of its life.

A nice double standard.

**loki old fart**

Grakmar wrote:It all comes down to the question: When does a collection of organic molecules stop being a collection of organic molecules and start being a human?

Some people draw the line at conception (when sperm meets egg). Some people draw the line at pregnancy (when fertilized egg secures to the uterine wall). Some people draw the line at when a fetus becomes viable outside the womb. Some people draw the line at birth. These guys draw the line sometime after birth (it's not clear when, perhaps when the child achieves sentience?).
Society just needs to sit down and figure this out in a calm and civil manner.

If life ends when the brain ceases to function, then surely life begins when the brain is capable of thought.

Manchu wrote:The question here is not what is human but who is a person.

The nazis tried that, first the disabled were not a person, then the jew's were not a person, then romanies/slavic people, captured americian/english soldiers were not people.
Let's not travel that route again.

Manchu wrote:
Phototoxin wrote:Personhood is an invented concept.
That's the very crux of it, in this case. For the purposes of determining who may be ethically killed, I do not find Giubilani and Minerva's definition of personhood compelling.

Neither do I

Vulcan wrote:
Additionally, people being people, mistakes happen as well. Intoxicated people are often not careful... and yet getting drunk and getting laid on the weekend is a very common American pastime amoung young people. We can't legislate morality - look at Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and the constant battle against Prostitution for how that turned out. We cannot legislate intelligence (if only!). We can only deal with the real world, and not what we all would wish it to be.

But we do legislate on morality, don't steal/rape/molest children/lie/kill ETC. Why should killing children be any different.

Phototoxin wrote:
Vulcan wrote: Second: Outlawing abortion in America will set up a system where the rich have the right to an abortion - a quick vacation to China takes care of it - and the poor do not. Not a good precident. Sure, one could write the laws so that if a woman knows she is pregnant before she 'goes to China' it is still a criminal charge, but then you just get the rich people going over upon private suspicion that they might be pregnant, getting tested there, having the abortion there, and claiming that since they didn't 'know' in America that makes it okay... and having really good lawyers, as only the rich seem to be able to do, they'd probably make it so.

Second: Outlawing paedophilia in America will set up a system where the rich have the right to paedophilia - a quick vacation to Thailand takes care of it - and the poor do not. Not a good precident. Sure, one could write the laws so that if a man knows he is a paedophile before he 'goes to Thailand' it is still a criminal charge, but then you just get the rich people going over upon private suspicion that they might be paedophile, getting tested there, having the child sex there, and claiming that since they didn't 'know' in America that makes it okay... and having really good lawyers, as only the rich seem to be able to do, they'd probably make it so.
Nice logic :-)

Third: Accidents happen. No form of birth control is 100% effective.

Abstinence. 100% guaranteed

And don't say 'just don't have sex!' Sex is a biological function, like eating and excreting. Starting in our mid-teens, sex becomes part of your life, like it or not. Sexual frustration can bleed over into other aspects of your life.

Anger, murder, theft, rape are all part of our biological makeup. However being human we might be above these urges?

Fourth: The bitter parent who was, for whatever reason, forced to have the child.

Rare that pregancy occurs from rape. If you're adult enough to have sex life with the consequences of your actions.

Seventh: Do you really think that if you outlaw legal abortions, that the back-alley abortion clinic won't make a massive comeback?

Again this logic, by using it we should legalise rape and murder as it will just happen anyway ya know? Drugs and child sexploitation too - cos it's better if it's regulated?

If your old enough to have sex. Be mature enough to live with the result's of your labors
The rich will always try to circumvent the law, if you allow them. Just make your laws more robust

**hotsauceman1**

loki old fart wrote:

Vulcan wrote:
Additionally, people being people, mistakes happen as well. Intoxicated people are often not careful... and yet getting drunk and getting laid on the weekend is a very common American pastime amoung young people. We can't legislate morality - look at Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and the constant battle against Prostitution for how that turned out. We cannot legislate intelligence (if only!). We can only deal with the real world, and not what we all would wish it to be.

But we do legislate on morality, don't steal/rape/molest children/lie/kill ETC. Why should killing children be any different.

Ok, Um, All those have victims. Abortion has no tangible living victim.

**Frazzled**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
loki old fart wrote:

Vulcan wrote:
Additionally, people being people, mistakes happen as well. Intoxicated people are often not careful... and yet getting drunk and getting laid on the weekend is a very common American pastime amoung young people. We can't legislate morality - look at Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and the constant battle against Prostitution for how that turned out. We cannot legislate intelligence (if only!). We can only deal with the real world, and not what we all would wish it to be.

But we do legislate on morality, don't steal/rape/molest children/lie/kill ETC. Why should killing children be any different.

Ok, Um, All those have victims. Abortion has no tangible living victim.

Neither does homicide.

**hotsauceman1**

Ok, i meant, Lived at one point victim.

**loki old fart**

hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok, i meant, Lived at one point victim.

Depends where life begins

**Frazzled**

hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok, i meant, Lived at one point victim.

So did I.

**hotsauceman1**

loki old fart wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok, i meant, Lived at one point victim.

Depends where life begins

And that where this debate lies. We all have different definitions of life.

**Manchu**

dogma wrote:
Manchu wrote:The fact that people will break the laws is not a valid argument against them. A better argument against a law is that it is unenforceable or that enforcing it will produce other, graver injustices than that which the law seeks to prevent. Women have no special insight into this.
An argument that people will break the law, at least break it en masse, is basically an argument that the law is unenforceable. In essence, while you may punish some, you cannot punish enough of the actual law breakers to render the law forceful.

This has troubled me over the last few days so I decided to look into it a bit. As of 2005, the number of abortions procured in the United States peaked at 1.6 million in 1990.* In that same year, 1.8 million murders were committed in the United States.* If 1.6 million instances of abortion in a year, the year in which there were more abortions than in any other (I doubt the figure would be higher if abortion were illegal in 1990), constitutes a sufficient argument that illegalization of abortion is unenforceable then one must wonder whether our laws against murder are similarly unenforceable.

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

loki old fart wrote:If life ends when the brain ceases to function, then surely life begins when the brain is capable of thought.

Actually, a person's brain can permanently cease to function and yet they remain alive (in that their other organs remain functional), hence the distinction between brain-death and death itself.
I'm not sure you can use this comparison to define when life starts.

**TheSecretSquig**

I'm all for it. Lets say my Wife an I concieve a child and give birth to a serverly handicapped child that will need 24hr supervision. Who are you to tell me that I now must give up my job in order to provide care for and now hand out my begging hat to the state so other hard working people can pay for me to sit at home all day (life on benefits) to care for a child that will never contribute anything to society other than drain its resources.

The descision should be with the parents of that child. Here's another thought.......... Lets abolish state funded benefits. How many people can now afford to care for a handicapped child, or any child for that matter?

I do not submit to the PC brigade or the pro life people. And how many people here are commenting from opinion, or experience? If you are all 'pro life' then perhaps having to give up your lifestyle, to live on state welfare, caring for someone just because someone else thinks 'its the right thing to do', may change your opinion.

**Grakmar**

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
loki old fart wrote:If life ends when the brain ceases to function, then surely life begins when the brain is capable of thought.

Actually, a person's brain can permanently cease to function and yet they remain alive (in that their other organs remain functional), hence the distinction between brain-death and death itself.
I'm not sure you can use this comparison to define when life starts.

This just highlights the unresolved issue for when exactly does a person "die".

If "life" continues after complete shutdown of the brain, then "life" surely continues well after other parts of the body cease to function.

There's no good, logical distinction between a person being "alive" if they have a few organs surviving being hooked up to machines, and a person being "alive" if you've got 1 or 2 cells surviving in a petri dish.

Brain death seems to be the only reasonable line to draw.

**Frazzled**

if its good enough for the zombie menace its good enough for me.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
Jubear wrote:Cant force a lass to make decisions about her own body. If she decides to keep it then its our business not before tho.

But she can force you to support that child for the rest of its life.

A nice double standard.

While I agree that the law regarding child support is not ideal, how is it a double standard to grant one gender a particular power in a particular situation, and not grant another gender a separate power in a separate situation?

**streamdragon**

Grakmar wrote:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
loki old fart wrote:If life ends when the brain ceases to function, then surely life begins when the brain is capable of thought.

Actually, a person's brain can permanently cease to function and yet they remain alive (in that their other organs remain functional), hence the distinction between brain-death and death itself.
I'm not sure you can use this comparison to define when life starts.

This just highlights the unresolved issue for when exactly does a person "die".

If "life" continues after complete shutdown of the brain, then "life" surely continues well after other parts of the body cease to function.

There's no good, logical distinction between a person being "alive" if they have a few organs surviving being hooked up to machines, and a person being "alive" if you've got 1 or 2 cells surviving in a petri dish.

Brain death seems to be the only reasonable line to draw.

And yet there was a huge bruhaha when they tried to remove a brain dead Terry Schiavo from life support...

**Manchu**

The connection of brain death as an acceptable legal standard for the end of human life to determining an acceptable legal standard for the beginning of human life begs the question. Any definition of death must be proper to the subject, which in the context of brain death is indisputably a person. Whether a fetus, much less a blastosphere, is a person is the question to hand. Put it another way, having a brain does not make an animal a person.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:And yet there was a huge bruhaha when they tried to remove a brain dead Terry Schiavo from life support...

She was not brain dead.

**streamdragon**

Ah, true enough. I confused brain dead with "permanent vegetative state".

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

Grakmar wrote:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
loki old fart wrote:If life ends when the brain ceases to function, then surely life begins when the brain is capable of thought.

Actually, a person's brain can permanently cease to function and yet they remain alive (in that their other organs remain functional), hence the distinction between brain-death and death itself.
I'm not sure you can use this comparison to define when life starts.

This just highlights the unresolved issue for when exactly does a person "die".

If "life" continues after complete shutdown of the brain, then "life" surely continues well after other parts of the body cease to function.

There's no good, logical distinction between a person being "alive" if they have a few organs surviving being hooked up to machines, and a person being "alive" if you've got 1 or 2 cells surviving in a petri dish.

Brain death seems to be the only reasonable line to draw.

Indeed, and yet scientists have been challenging this since the 90's, as they claim that braindead patients should still be classed as alive on the basis that their body is able to fight infection, heal wounds and otherwise perform it's standard functions. The debate really rests, in that case, on whether consciousness defines life, and if a precedent was set in the case of braindead inviduals it may well be applied to the case of foetuses (is that the plural?) in abortion.

**dogma**

Manchu wrote:This has troubled me over the last few days so I decided to look into it a bit. As of 2005, the number of abortions procured in the United States peaked at 1.6 million in 1990.* In that same year, 1.8 million murders were committed in the United States.* If 1.3 million instances of abortion in a year, the year in which there were more abortions than in any other (I doubt the figure would be higher if abortion were illegal in 1990), constitutes a sufficient argument that illegalization of abortion is unenforceable then one must wonder whether our laws against murder are similarly unenforceable.

Well, according to your source, the peak rate of abortions was 29.3 (per 1000 pregnancies) in 1980-81 in comparison to 27.4 in 1990. The source also notes that in 1974, a year after abortion became illegal, the rate 19.3 per 1000 pregnancies, which is comparable to the 19.4% seen in 2005.

There are a couple ways to interpret this, but I'm inclined to suppose that the actual abortion rate was significantly higher than reported prior to its legalization, and that the reduction in abortion rate is primarily tied to better sex education, and more easily available contraceptives. An easy way to test this would to compare the abortion rate to the rate of unplanned pregnancies. If unplanned pregnancy drops in kind with the abortion rate, then there is a degree of confirming evidence.

To run with your comparison to homicide, in 1991 the homicide rate in the US was .098 per 1000 people, potentially implying a much greater rate of preventive success than as regards abortion, which seems to have hit a rate of 19.1 prior to legalization (at least in the targeted group).

**Melissia**

One would think that conservatives would push for more contraceptives so that there's less abortion? Dunno, they seem to be doing everything else to prevent abortion.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:One would think that conservatives would push for more contraceptives so that there's less abortion? Dunno, they seem to be doing everything else to prevent abortion.

Really, they are doing everything else?You lack imagination young one.

**Grakmar**

Manchu wrote:
streamdragon wrote:And yet there was a huge bruhaha when they tried to remove a brain dead Terry Schiavo from life support...
She was not brain dead.

Well, that was pretty debatable. Some of her family claimed that she would actually look at them and react to things. However, the EEG showed no measurable brain activity. And, neurologists looking at her CAT scans agreed she didn't have any higher brain function.

So, her family may have just been experiencing denial or wishful thinking (completely understandable, given the circumstances). Or, it could be that she was occasionally reacting on a purely instinctive level, and there was no recognition or reasoning going on at all.

Of course, this case is an example of how even defining "death" with brain death is a grey area, as just how extensive does the brain have to die before it's considered "dead" isn't agreed upon.

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

Grakmar wrote:So, her family may have just been experiencing denial or wishful thinking (completely understandable, given the circumstances). Or, it could be that she was occasionally reacting on a purely instinctive level, and there was no recognition or reasoning going on at all.

Probably the former; a braindead person can't even react on an instinctual level, as the brain itself will not function under any circumstance.
Hell, even reflexes completely disappear in a braindead patient.
But yeah, I agree with you. Defining what constitutes the moment of death is about as tricky as defining the moment of life; we can tell what is alive and what isn't, but not where one of the two ceases and the other begins.

**Manchu**

Grakmar wrote:
Manchu wrote:
streamdragon wrote:And yet there was a huge bruhaha when they tried to remove a brain dead Terry Schiavo from life support...
She was not brain dead.
Well, that was pretty debatable.

I'm not speaking from an ideological position. As far as I know, the doctors involved agreed that she was in a persistent vegetative state or, at most (and I find this hard to believe) a minimally conscious state.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:To run with your comparison to homicide, in 1991 the homicide rate in the US was .098 per 1000 people, potentially implying a much greater rate of preventive success than as regards abortion, which seems to have hit a rate of 19.1 prior to legalization (at least in the targeted group).

Excellent point, I concede.

**Vulcan**

biccat wrote:
Jubear wrote:Cant force a lass to make decisions about her own body. If she decides to keep it then its our business not before tho.

But she can force you to support that child for the rest of its life.

A nice double standard.

Well, you did choose to have sex with her, and if she's pregnant there's a pretty good chance you failed to take even the most basic precaution of wearing a condom (1 in 10ish for unprotected sex vs. 1 in 1000 or so for wearing a condom). It takes two to tango and all...

**Jubear**

Frazzled wrote:
Jubear wrote:Why are men even commenting on the issue its none of our fething business.

Bull gak. None of your business maybe, in which case, here, take this test. Oops looks like you're not sustainable. Please go stand in that line. Our attendants will help you shortly.

How is a decision that effects the health of woman have anything to do with you? What makes you think you have the right to impose your own misguided set of morals and values on someone else? I accept that if I knock a woman up and she wants to keep it/abort it I dont really get a say in things because its not my body being ravaged by pregnancy. Yes it would suck watching a large chunk of my wages going towards a child I do not want, But atleast it makes me be careful about my own sexual health because frankly having a kid is wayyy scarier then catching hepatitis.

**biccat**

Vulcan wrote:Well, you did choose to have sex with her, and if she's pregnant there's a pretty good chance you failed to take even the most basic precaution of wearing a condom (1 in 10ish for unprotected sex vs. 1 in 1000 or so for wearing a condom). It takes two to tango and all...

And she chose to have sex with me. Why does she get a second bite at the apple?

Perhaps, in the interest of sexual equality, we should allow men to surrender their parental rights for $5,000, thereby ensuring that they'll never have to pay child support.

**Manchu**

Jubear wrote:its not my body being ravaged by pregnancy.

Ravaged?

Jubear wrote:Yes it would suck watching a large chunk of my wages going towards a child I do not want, But atleast it makes me be careful about my own sexual health because frankly having a kid is wayyy scarier then catching hepatitis.

Yes it would suck to have to drop out of school or whatever else if you are a pregnant woman but at least that makes women be careful about their own ... wait what were we talking about?

**Vulcan**

Melissia wrote:One would think that conservatives would push for more contraceptives so that there's less abortion? Dunno, they seem to be doing everything else to prevent abortion.

That's because one of the core values of diehard conservatives is a return to the Victorian ideals - a couple would go to their marriage bed virgins, and then the woman would remain at home to care for the kids. Sex before marriage is forbidden, and once you're married the woman has plenty of time and support to stay home with the kids.

That this idea never actually existed seems to have escaped them...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Vulcan wrote:Well, you did choose to have sex with her, and if she's pregnant there's a pretty good chance you failed to take even the most basic precaution of wearing a condom (1 in 10ish for unprotected sex vs. 1 in 1000 or so for wearing a condom). It takes two to tango and all...

And she chose to have sex with me. Why does she get a second bite at the apple?

Perhaps, in the interest of sexual equality, we should allow men to surrender their parental rights for $5,000, thereby ensuring that they'll never have to pay child support.

I think something like that is actually an option around here in STL.

**Manchu**

There may be some "diehards" who advocate "Victorian" extremism but I don't think advocating a policy of abstinence is an example of it. Pre-marital abstinence itself poses no social harm whatsoever, either hypothetically or actually. The distribution of contraceptives and availability of abortion, conservatives argue, promote sexual activity (pre-marital or otherwise) that does pose social harm -- such as the spread of venereal disease and increased unwanted pregnancies.

Please keep in mind that although abstinence is often "packaged" with a loathing for sex ed and certain attitudes towards women's supposed duties those notions are actually independent. Also, you might consider abstinence as more of an ideal rather than a practice. Whether everyone actually lives up to an ideal has nothing to do with its value.