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.

purplefood wrote:

Albatross wrote:Can a new-born baby survive independently, once it's exited the womb?

Not what i said 'nor what i meant.

And yet you opened that door, so his question is entirely valid.

I see that even as I tried to get people to think about the issue, they still insist on responding emotionally.

In the final analysis, until the issues I raised can be dealt with, abortion - legal or not - is here to stay.


Personally, I think that rather than expending all this energy and funding on trying to force a pro-life belief onto people with pro-choice preferences, it would be more proftitable to spend the energy and funding trying to find a way to make abortions unneeded. Say, funding research into ways to bring a fetus to term outside the uterus, and ways to inexpensively and safely remove said fetus from the uterus in the first place. That would probably be a lot more productive than all this 'you want to kill babies!' vs. 'you belive women aren't smart enough to control their own bodies!' argument going on.

I'd bet once some sort of artifical womb service becomes economically competitive with abortion services, abortions will disappear overnight.

It would be probably cheaper and easier just to transplant the fetus into a surragate mother, a bit like what is done for livestock.

Vulcan wrote:
I'd bet once some sort of artifical womb service becomes economically competitive with abortion services, abortions will disappear overnight.

I can't see that ever happening. Abortion isn't particularly expensive, and with any particular artificial womb you're basically talking about the cost of MVA or aspiration, and the attendant cost of the artificial womb.

Maybe you can find political support for publicly fund artificial wombs, but my guess is that you won't because, as Polonius said up thread, its not just about killing babies.

Then, with an artificial womb, you're still left with the question regarding guardianship.

Relapse wrote:It would be probably cheaper and easier just to transplant the fetus into a surragate mother, a bit like what is done for livestock.

It depends on the available population of willing surrogate mothers.

Overpopulation of the planet is a myth, created by the people that want to decide who is worthwhile and who isn't. Using the pop density of New York, you could fit everyone on the planet into Texas.

Conservation of non-human life is a good thing, but no non-human species is worth a human life. More species have gone extinct then currently exist on the planet. $hit happens.

Abortion/killing babies is unconstitutional (I don't care about a liberal decision by the majority of 9 people in bad robes with an agenda say. I can read too.) and immoral. It's amazing how the people that defend death row inmates and snail darters are the same people that want to shove human babies into garbage disposals. Unborn babies have REM sleep, which means they may dream. I doubt if they do that it would be hoping someone pokes them with a surgical tool.

Best,

Phanatik wrote:Abortion/killing babies is unconstitutional

I disagree. That which is immoral is not unconstitutional.

Anyway, here's an interesting story. The parents didn't want a downs syndrome child, if the hospital had properly screened the fetus in utero, they would have killed aborted her.

In cases like this - where the child is born with a disorder that is undetected during pregnancy and would have leed to the child otherwise being aborted - isn't it consistent with the pro-choice model to allow after-birth abortions?

biccat wrote:

Phanatik wrote:Abortion/killing babies is unconstitutional

I disagree. That which is immoral is not unconstitutional.

Anyway, here's an interesting story. The parents didn't want a downs syndrome child, if the hospital had properly screened the fetus in utero, they would have killed aborted her.

In cases like this - where the child is born with a disorder that is undetected during pregnancy and would have leed to the child otherwise being aborted - isn't it consistent with the pro-choice model to allow after-birth abortions?

I don't see how you linked the two here.

Though if you are interested in how Australian judges dealt with it read this http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLJ/2003/5.html#Heading165

biccat wrote:

Phanatik wrote:Abortion/killing babies is unconstitutional

I disagree. That which is immoral is not unconstitutional.

Anyway, here's an interesting story. The parents didn't want a downs syndrome child, if the hospital had properly screened the fetus in utero, they would have killed aborted her.

In cases like this - where the child is born with a disorder that is undetected during pregnancy and would have leed to the child otherwise being aborted - isn't it consistent with the pro-choice model to allow after-birth abortions?

Thats the argument being made in the OP.

Frazzled wrote:Thats the argument being made in the OP.

The OP is making the case that all forms of infanticide post-birth abortion are morally acceptable. This is a narrower case where infanticide post-birth abortion should only be available when there is some misconduct or negligence that the parents relied upon to avoid having an abortion.

Hazardous Harry wrote:I don't see how you linked the two here.

What two? The response to Phanatik and my link? Yeah, that was a little forced.

But if you're referring to the linked article and the OP: I think they're linked, per my response to Frazzled.

yea they are arguing for any reason, but that was one of the underlying reasons for why someone would do it.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats the argument being made in the OP.

The OP is making the case that all forms of infanticide post-birth abortion are morally acceptable. This is a narrower case where infanticide post-birth abortion should only be available when there is some misconduct or negligence that the parents relied upon to avoid having an abortion.

Hazardous Harry wrote:I don't see how you linked the two here.

What two? The response to Phanatik and my link? Yeah, that was a little forced.

But if you're referring to the linked article and the OP: I think they're linked, per my response to Frazzled.

I see what you're saying now. I still disagree, as the child is now considered a person. The fact that the parents would have had an abortion if they had been properly advised regarding the likelihood of down-syndrome doesn't make killing the child justifiable at all. At most you could sue the doctors in damages for raising and supporting a mentally ill child as opposed to a healthy one.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats the argument being made in the OP.

The OP is making the case that all forms of infanticide post-birth abortion are morally acceptable. This is a narrower case where infanticide post-birth abortion should only be available when there is some misconduct or negligence that the parents relied upon to avoid having an abortion.

Hazardous Harry wrote:I don't see how you linked the two here.

What two? The response to Phanatik and my link? Yeah, that was a little forced.

But if you're referring to the linked article and the OP: I think they're linked, per my response to Frazzled.

I see what you're saying now. I still disagree, as the child is now considered a person. The fact that the parents would have had an abortion if they had been properly advised regarding the likelihood of down-syndrome doesn't make killing the child justifiable at all. At most you could sue the doctors in damages for raising and supporting a mentally ill child as opposed to a healthy one.

Well thats what actually occurred (wrongful birth suit) variant). The OP is arguing that as babies aren't people, its ok to just wack them and correct the error. I imagine the best procedure is to leave them at the fork of a road.

Frazzled wrote:
Well thats what actually occurred (wrongful birth suit) variant). The OP is arguing that as babies aren't people, its ok to just wack them and correct the error. I imagine the best procedure is to leave them at the fork of a road.

Yes, that is (roughly) what the OP was arguing. I was just disagreeing with biccat that this was in line with the pro-choice line of thought.

Frazzled wrote:yea they are arguing for any reason, but that was one of the underlying reasons for why someone would do it.

There seems to be a lot of objection, even from pro-choice advocates, with the idea that you could kill an infant for any reason. I agree that that logic is flawed.

However, for the narrower case - where an abortion would have occurred but for the negligence of the doctor - it's a more difficult argument to refute. The right to choose to have children (or not) surely must be an informed choice. If you make that decision based on negligently provided information you should get another bite at the apple, so to speak.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:yea they are arguing for any reason, but that was one of the underlying reasons for why someone would do it.

There seems to be a lot of objection, even from pro-choice advocates, with the idea that you could kill an infant for any reason. I agree that that logic is flawed.

However, for the narrower case - where an abortion would have occurred but for the negligence of the doctor - it's a more difficult argument to refute. The right to choose to have children (or not) surely must be an informed choice. If you make that decision based on negligently provided information you should get another bite at the apple, so to speak.

Only because the woman's right to have that choice is considered more important than the unborn foetus, not a newborn child which should and is to be considered a seperate person with equally important rights.

biccat wrote:

Phanatik wrote:Abortion/killing babies is unconstitutional

I disagree. That which is immoral is not unconstitutional.

I know I inserted a long comment to qualify the unconstitutional part. I said it was unconstitutional AND immoral. Thus, it's against the laws of the founders and nature.

I understand that an immoral act could be constitutional. (Look at congress.)

Best,

I've never understood the way many people from the States seem to diefy the founding fathers. I mean, these people were around when slavery was still considered a pretty nifty idea, it's not unthinkable to suggest they might not have been entirely correct about everything.

Phanatik wrote:I know I inserted a long comment to qualify the unconstitutional part. I said it was unconstitutional AND immoral. Thus, it's against the laws of the founders and nature.

Well, I also disagree that abortion is unconstitutional, separate from its morality. There is a decent argument for it being unconstitutional, I'm curious what yours is.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Only because the woman's right to have that choice is considered more important than the unborn foetus, not a newborn child which should and is to be considered a seperate person with equally important rights.

Does the woman have a right to an informed decision on whether to abort or not?

Hazardous Harry wrote:I've never understood the way many people from the States seem to diefy the founding fathers. I mean, these people were around when slavery was still considered a pretty nifty idea, it's not unthinkable to suggest they might not have been entirely correct about everything.

Because all in all, they developed a system far ahead of its time. Plus they saved us from having to eat British food. Haggis is a war crime you know!

biccat wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:Only because the woman's right to have that choice is considered more important than the unborn foetus, not a newborn child which should and is to be considered a seperate person with equally important rights.

Does the woman have a right to an informed decision on whether to abort or not?

I would say she does. But if anything the proper remedial course would be to sue the doctor, not kill the child after the fact.

Frazzled wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:I've never understood the way many people from the States seem to diefy the founding fathers. I mean, these people were around when slavery was still considered a pretty nifty idea, it's not unthinkable to suggest they might not have been entirely correct about everything.

Because all in all, they developed a system far ahead of its time.

Actually a lot of their ideas (not that the founding fathers actually invented the ideas) were popular among intellectual circles at the time. There's nothing odd about that.

Plus they saved us from having to eat British food. Haggis is a war crime you know!

Haggis is a Scottish delicacy.

Or a massive practical joke on visiting tourists.

Hazardous Harry wrote:I've never understood the way many people from the States seem to diefy the founding fathers. I mean, these people were around when slavery was still considered a pretty nifty idea, it's not unthinkable to suggest they might not have been entirely correct about everything.

Slavery, while morally repugnant and reprehensible, was the "norm" at the time. And yet George Washington freed all his slaves upon his death (well, all but a handful who were freed after his wife Martha died).

streamdragon wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:I've never understood the way many people from the States seem to diefy the founding fathers. I mean, these people were around when slavery was still considered a pretty nifty idea, it's not unthinkable to suggest they might not have been entirely correct about everything.

Slavery, while morally repugnant and reprehensible, was the "norm" at the time. And yet George Washington freed all his slaves upon his death (well, all but a handful who were freed after his wife Martha died).

I'm not saying the founding fathers were avid supporters of slavery, I just don't see why so many Americans (or at least the ones where this topic has come up) seem to idolise the founding fathers so. You'd be hard pressed to find anything near the level of devotion to centuries old political leaders in similar countries (bar perhaps Turkey with Ataturk).

Hazardous Harry wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:I've never understood the way many people from the States seem to diefy the founding fathers. I mean, these people were around when slavery was still considered a pretty nifty idea, it's not unthinkable to suggest they might not have been entirely correct about everything.

Slavery, while morally repugnant and reprehensible, was the "norm" at the time. And yet George Washington freed all his slaves upon his death (well, all but a handful who were freed after his wife Martha died).

I'm not saying the founding fathers were avid supporters of slavery, I just don't see why so many Americans (or at least the ones where this topic has come up) seem to idolise the founding fathers so. You'd be hard pressed to find anything near the level of devotion to centuries old political leaders in similar countries (bar perhaps Turkey with Ataturk).

British food does that to you. I have an antidote. Have you ever heard of something called chile rellenos?

Frazzled wrote:
British food does that to you. I have an antidote. Have you ever heard of something called chile rellenos?

I understand that you're joking, I just don't understand how.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
British food does that to you. I have an antidote. Have you ever heard of something called chile rellenos?

I understand that you're joking, I just don't understand how.

Thats because you haven't tried chile rellenos. It will clear you nose, and your mind.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:I've never understood the way many people from the States seem to diefy the founding fathers. I mean, these people were around when slavery was still considered a pretty nifty idea, it's not unthinkable to suggest they might not have been entirely correct about everything.

Slavery, while morally repugnant and reprehensible, was the "norm" at the time. And yet George Washington freed all his slaves upon his death (well, all but a handful who were freed after his wife Martha died).

I'm not saying the founding fathers were avid supporters of slavery, I just don't see why so many Americans (or at least the ones where this topic has come up) seem to idolise the founding fathers so. You'd be hard pressed to find anything near the level of devotion to centuries old political leaders in similar countries (bar perhaps Turkey with Ataturk).

Because beyond being the Founding Fathers, they were also brilliant men in a variety of fields.

George Washington was a pioneer of farming techniques. Benjamin Franklin was... well... Benjamin Franklin. Thomas Jefferson was quite the philosopher and also a fair bit of an inventor himself. Granted, some of them were duds (looking at you John Quincy Adams) but most of them were quite impressive people.

There's also the fact that they were not simply defacto leaders; they didn't inherit their titles like kings or queens. They are so revered because they worked, for the most part, alongside the people they "ruled". It's a rather unique position to be in, as opposed to places whose political leaders were simply there because of tradition.

Phanatik wrote:Overpopulation of the planet is a myth, created by the people that want to decide who is worthwhile and who isn't.

I'm glad that you oppose capital punishment, and self defense, or at least that you lack the foresight to consider the implications of your arguments.

Phanatik wrote:
Abortion/killing babies is unconstitutional (I don't care about a liberal decision by the majority of 9 people in bad robes with an agenda say. I can read too.) and immoral.

There's a part of the Constitution that forbids abortion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
In cases like this - where the child is born with a disorder that is undetected during pregnancy and would have leed to the child otherwise being aborted - isn't it consistent with the pro-choice model to allow after-birth abortions?

So the pro-choice model now necessitates the permission of after birth abortions?

dogma wrote:So the pro-choice model now necessitates the permission of after birth abortions?

No, it always has.

Nothing has changed.

biccat wrote:
However, for the narrower case - where an abortion would have occurred but for the negligence of the doctor - it's a more difficult argument to refute. The right to choose to have children (or not) surely must be an informed choice. If you make that decision based on negligently provided information you should get another bite at the apple, so to speak.

Why?

Once you've "had the child" (given birth) the question seems moot.

If you don't want it, then there are plenty of means by which to transfer custody.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:So the pro-choice model now necessitates the permission of after birth abortions?

No, it always has.

Nothing has changed.

So, the belief that women should have the capacity to abort a pregnancy, that is, kill a fetus, entails the belief that women should have the right to kill a child after giving birth to said child?

Are you really of the opinion that there is no meaningful distinction between a fetus and a child?

Does that, further, mean that there is no meaningful distinction between a 3 year old, and 50 year old?

biccat wrote:There is a decent argument for it being unconstitutional, I'm curious what yours is.

The Elephant Man aside, a human fetus grows into a human baby that grows into a human adult. Americans are protected by the Constitution from the government and the tyranny of the masses.

If an illegal alien is protected by the constitution (as some suggest (such as abortion advocates - my my the positions these people take)) than surely an American baby should be, regardless of it's 10-20. Consider the baby Occupies Wombstreet, to confuse the left.

If someone is unable or unwilling to defend themselves in a legal situation, an (objective?) attorney can and will be provided to speak on that person's behalf. (all of the t.v. legal dramas say so, so it must be true) A mother [hellbent - <grin>] on killing the child is subjective and might not have the child's best interests at heart.

R v. W supposedly created a woman's constitutional right to an abortion (I defy anyone to show me the paragraph where it says so) which if true, would create a conflict between the mother's rights and the baby's rights, which would have to be resolved (great, more lawyers). This leaves abortion advocates trying to argue that a baby isn't a baby to remove the conflict.

Regards,