After birth abortion?

[Neo-Scholastic]

All this is nothing new...

Peter Singer, a bioethicist, advocated for infanticide. The Guardian At least he is honest about the logical conclusions of the pro-choice position. Any argument in favor of abortion can be used to justify infanticide or euthanasia in general.

The arguments for oppressing womens right to choose do not really hold water when you look at what happens when they can't.

They still try to abort the fetus, just in really unsafe ways.

Have a look at the history, I'll wait while you bring yourself up to speed.

Oh, I have. Have you?...JUST FACTS

Let’s start with the central premise: every woman (and man) should be the ultimate authority over the integrity and treatment of their own body.

Now What?

Is a fetus part of a woman's body or is it a distinct organism? I think it is hard to argue that fetuses serve any necessary biological function of a woman, similar to the way spleens or lungs do. As such, fetuses are not in fact parts of pregnant women's bodies. Therefore the argument that a right abortion is grounded in the woman's ownership of her body is a complete non sequitor.

One could then argue that since fetuses are physically dependent upon their mothers that gives mothers certain rights over her children that includes killing them. But dependency alone is not a sufficient condition for granting life and death authority over another human being. Infants and toddlers are also physically dependent on adult care. Some qualification is necessary to distinguish between pre- and post-birth physical dependency.

Could viability serve as such a qualifier? That too is problematic. Healthy fetuses naturally develop into infants in the same way that infants naturally develop into mature adults provided the necessary and sufficient conditions are present to meet their needs. It seems strange to say that a human being isn't viable simply because it will wither and die for lack of basic necessities. What makes it right to fatally withhold the basic life necessities of a very young human being but not right to do the same to an infant or an adult?

Maybe one could say that parents have the right to make health care decisions for their children? In the case of abortion, that would include actively ending the life of one's very young child. But does anyone truly believe that parents have such all-encompassing authority? On what basis do we justify limiting that authority later after baby has simply changed its physical location from inside the womb to out in the world?

Making a utilitarian argument with suffering as the sole criteria is problematic. If you apply that reasoning to cases other than abortion the flaw becomes immediately apparent. If suffering is the only criteria then it would be morally permissible for one person to benefit from causing the quick and painless death of another, regardless of age or circumstances. Secondly you have applied a double standard. For the fetus, you define suffering only in terms of physical pain and not loss of potential goods. But for the mother, you define suffering in terms of lost opportunities and/or incurring future obligations.

Then there is the argument from practicality. If abortion were illegal, then women will die from underground abortions. This raises the question: how many women would die for criminal abortions. According to the CDC report, “Abortion Surveillance—United States, 1996.” By Lisa M. Koonin and others, in the year before Roe v. Wade 36 women died from complications caused by an illegal abortion. Of course, even a single death is a tragedy, yet compared to the year after Roe v. Wade, the number of deaths from legal abortions was 26. The notion that making abortion illegal will dramatically increase abortion related fatalities is not borne out by the facts.

[Amarok]

A vapid collection of Anti choice bunkum with a really ironic title

[Mr.Obvious]

The important thing here, people, of which we musn't lose sight, is : could it help us abort trump?

[robvalue]

I can't imagine why there would be any controversy about the practice !!



Exodus 12 (KJV)
29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

Leviticus 26 (KJV)
22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.

Leviticus 26  (KJV)
29 And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat

Deuteronomy 28  (KJV)
53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:

Deuteronomy 2 (KJV)
33 And the Lord our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

Joshua 6 (KJV)
21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.


Joshua 7  (KJV)
24 And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.
25 And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the Lord shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.

Isaiah 13 (KJV)
18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

Right! You can abort whoever you want as long as the correct voice in your head tells you to do so.

But I guess it was a time-sensitive excuse, as Christians wouldn't accept someone saying that these days.

[Anomalocaris]

The important thing here, people, of which we musn't lose sight, is : could it help us abort trump?

It’s too late for post-birth abortion. we need pre-death interment.

[Seraphina]

The arguments for oppressing womens right to choose do not really hold water when you look at what happens when they can't.

They still try to abort the fetus, just in really unsafe ways.

Have a look at the history, I'll wait while you bring yourself up to speed.

Oh, I have. Have you?...JUST FACTS

Let’s start with the central premise: every woman (and man) should be the ultimate authority over the integrity and treatment of their own body.

Now What?

Is a fetus part of a woman's body or is it a distinct organism? I think it is hard to argue that fetuses serve any necessary biological function of a woman, similar to the way spleens or lungs do. As such, fetuses are not in fact parts of pregnant women's bodies. Therefore the argument that a right abortion is grounded in the woman's ownership of her body is a complete non sequitor.

One could then argue that since fetuses are physically dependent upon their mothers that gives mothers certain rights over her children that includes killing them. But dependency alone is not a sufficient condition for granting life and death authority over another human being. Infants and toddlers are also physically dependent on adult care. Some qualification is necessary to distinguish between pre- and post-birth physical dependency.

Could viability serve as such a qualifier? That too is problematic. Healthy fetuses naturally develop into infants in the same way that infants naturally develop into mature adults provided the necessary and sufficient conditions are present to meet their needs. It seems strange to say that a human being isn't viable simply because it will wither and die for lack of basic necessities. What makes it right to fatally withhold the basic life necessities of a very young human being but not right to do the same to an infant or an adult?

Maybe one could say that parents have the right to make health care decisions for their children? In the case of abortion, that would include actively ending the life of one's very young child. But does anyone truly believe that parents have such all-encompassing authority? On what basis do we justify limiting that authority later after baby has simply changed its physical location from inside the womb to out in the world?

Making a utilitarian argument with suffering as the sole criteria is problematic. If you apply that reasoning to cases other than abortion the flaw becomes immediately apparent. If suffering is the only criteria then it would be morally permissible for one person to benefit from causing the quick and painless death of another, regardless of age or circumstances. Secondly you have applied a double standard. For the fetus, you define suffering only in terms of physical pain and not loss of potential goods. But for the mother, you define suffering in terms of lost opportunities and/or incurring future obligations.

Then there is the argument from practicality. If abortion were illegal, then women will die from underground abortions. This raises the question: how many women would die for criminal abortions. According to the CDC report, “Abortion Surveillance—United States, 1996.” By Lisa M. Koonin and others, in the year before Roe v. Wade 36 women died from complications caused by an illegal abortion. Of course, even a single death is a tragedy, yet compared to the year after Roe v. Wade, the number of deaths from legal abortions was 26. The notion that making abortion illegal will dramatically increase abortion related fatalities is not borne out by the facts.

Bold is mine.
I can't buy this, especially the last word of your post, without a complete citation.
A quick google search brought up the article you mention but the words Roe v. Wade don't even appear in it. I'm inclined to think the exhaustive data compiled by LM Koonin et al has been twisted around to suit the anti-choice crowd.

That reminds me - I need to donate to Planned Parenthood.

-Teresa

[Alexmahone]

Nobel laureate James Watson once said, "Perhaps, as my former colleague Francis Crick suggested, no one should be thought alive until about three days after birth."

Source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_D._Watson

[Neo-Scholastic]

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe the study doesnt show support my opinion. I welcome being corrected. The whole debate is too long on rhetoric and short pn facts. When one side claims that women died when abortion was illegal, it seems reasonable to know how many. Or when they say that a fetus is not a person, I wonder why we afford personhood to corporations and give them more rights than unborn human beings.

[Amarok]

Neo pushing more Anti Choice propaganda .I know women having control pisses off the fundies.But lame distortion will not a case make

[Seraphina]

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe the study doesnt show support my opinion. I welcome being corrected. The whole debate is too long on rhetoric and short pn facts. When one side claims that women died when abortion was illegal, it seems reasonable to know how many. Or when they say that a fetus is not a person, I wonder why we afford personhood to corporations and give them more rights than unborn human beings.

I can respect your openness to being corrected.

Out here in the real world, nearly one in 4 US women have had an abortion. Quite likely some AF members here have had one. If you have a uterus or know someone who has one, this is a real life issue, not an abstract philosophical argument.

If you'd like to know how many women died by infection or bleeding to death when abortion was illegal, I can attest to one - my great grandmother in the 1920s. I tend to think hers wasn't an isolated or rare incident.

-Teresa