Notices

View Poll Results: How should infanticed be handled?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • It is immoral and should be made illegal!

    7 53.85%
  • It should be up to the parents at the time of birth.

    2 15.38%
  • The parents should decide before the child is born and give their instructions to the doctor.

    1 7.69%
  • The doctors should be educated in the matter and it should be solely up to them.

    1 7.69%
  • None of the above.

    2 15.38%
Results 1 to 58 of 58

Thread: Infanticide

  1. #1 Infanticide 
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Isn't that everyone's favorite topic.

    First off, I want to apologize for being gone so long. Life just kinda snuck up on me (not that this isn't part of life).

    So, I was at work on one of the busiest days of the year and I accidentally brought up the topic of infanticide. My accident brought me an hour of paid argument time (I hope none of my managers are reading this). Anyways, I read a lot about this topic about a year ago while writing a paper on euthanasia. Now I bring the topic to you.

    There are two general sides to this. One thinks infanticide is fine and relieves much unneeded suffering; the other believes it is immoral and relates it to the actions of Hitler and other "bad" people.

    What is infanticide? It is when you either terminate or neglect a newborn baby, either way resulting in its death. If your new to this topic you may be thinking "WOW who would do that?". Well actually it happens all the time and has been for a very long time. It is spoken of in Plato's republic and for those of you more into the movie stuff you may know the movie "300" where they demonstrate this by throwing the newborns of a cliff.

    Why does this happen? Some babies are born severely deformed (i.e. missing half a face) or mentally ill. Also, babies born prematurely are often set aside and allowed to die. The doctors simply tell the parents it was a stillborn.

    Do to advancements in technology this is becoming more controversial because we are more capable of saving physical or mentally handicapped infants.

    My current opinion is that doctors should be educated in this matter and that it should be up to the doctor. I would say that if I had a child who was severely, physically or mentally handicapped I would want infanticide; however, I do not believe I would be in the mental state to make that decision once the baby has been born.

    There are millions of dollars spent on handicapped people who often aren't even self aware do to their handicap. There is a child reported on CNN called "Pillow Angel" who was saved from some severe deformities; however, she will never mature or grow any larger than the size of an average baby. So... do we use here to teach teenagers how to take care of children? Do we just put her in a crib and take care of a baby for 20, 30 years (however long she survives). Or maybe we should have just let her die in the first place. She will never be aware of herself and never be able to do anything besides cry and sleep (animals do more than this).

    Anyways, I could go on, and I probably will but I'll let ya'll get a say in first. Tell me what you think.

    P.S.
    You guys need to add "snuck" to your dictionary


    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Guest
    Ignoring all forms of infanticide other than mental/physical (carried out by the child's parents), and from my own experience of being related to such a child I say it is 100% a decision for the parents.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Ignoring all forms of infanticide other than mental/physical (carried out by the child's parents)
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    100% a decision for the parents
    So do you think the parents should give criteria to the doctors before hand or should decide once the child is born? Or both... I guess?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,452
    Are we talking newborns here? Or have you an age limit, like up to 1 year old or more?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Guest
    Infanticide can be anything from the 'mercy killing by parents' to the kidnap torture and killing of a normal infant by a stranger.

    If the parents feel they do not want their severely handicapped child to survive I believe they should have a right to 'smother it'.
    I am not talking about MR and Missus rich bastatrd who cannot be bothered to care for the child.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    We are talking about 'mercy killing by parents'.

    So Megabrain, you believe it would be wrong for a doctor to make this decision without informing the parents?

    The issue then becomes, who's responsible for the child? If the parents decide to keep a severely handicapped child alive they are likely going to require immense amounts of support. The child may be so disabled they cannot leave the hospital. All of the sudden this severely disabled child is now the community's responsibility.

    Also, we must consider the child's own views. This child will likely grow up with a lot of depression (if they are able to comprehend their situation that is) and may even lean towards suicide.

    I guess what I am getting at is: should this topic be a private choice or a public one? It seems obvious to me that more than just the immediate family will be involved in the care of the child.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    We are talking about 'mercy killing by parents'.

    So Megabrain, you believe it would be wrong for a doctor to make this decision without informing the parents?

    The issue then becomes, who's responsible for the child? If the parents decide to keep a severely handicapped child alive they are likely going to require immense amounts of support. The child may be so disabled they cannot leave the hospital. All of the sudden this severely disabled child is now the community's responsibility.

    Also, we must consider the child's own views. This child will likely grow up with a lot of depression (if they are able to comprehend their situation that is) and may even lean towards suicide.

    I guess what I am getting at is: should this topic be a private choice or a public one? It seems obvious to me that more than just the immediate family will be involved in the care of the child.

    Infanticide should never be supported on the basis of cost alone as there are many perfectly healthy babies at birth who go on as adults to have terrible long term illnesses or injuries(coma/paralysis/chaemotherapy/transplant etc) which also generate huge long term costs and need a lot of care by the community.

    So where would the 'mercy' killing end if decided upon based on cost and care to keep an individual alive?

    With regards to depression, the majority of depression sufferers are otherwise healthy humans. The highest suicide rate is amongst dentists and doctors. So the fact these handicapped people may suffer depression is also not a good reason to support infanticide.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,452
    Let's kill all smokers and spare them the agony of tobacco related terminal illnesses in the future. Save money on health costs too.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Let's kill all smokers and spare them the agony of tobacco related terminal illnesses in the future. Save money on health costs too.
    Maybe thats the excuse Stalin used and Hitler with the jews :?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,452
    Oh hell. Let's all jump off a cliff and save the planet, we're going to croak anyway.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Let's kill all smokers and spare them the agony of tobacco related terminal illnesses in the future. Save money on health costs too.
    Maybe thats the excuse Stalin used and Hitler with the jews :?
    :P I saw this comment coming from a mile away. However, I personally do not completely disagree (my favorite double negative) with svwillmer, at least not in a sarcastic or exaggerating sort of way. Obviously we (whoever "we" are) cannot go around telling people what is right and wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Infanticide should never be supported on the basis of cost alone as there are many perfectly healthy babies at birth who go on as adults to have terrible long term illnesses or injuries(coma/paralysis/chaemotherapy/transplant etc) which also generate huge long term costs and need a lot of care by the community.
    I disagree. The trouble is that as technology improves, more lives are saved. We are getting to a point (if we are not already there) where there is not enough money or people to take care of these individuals.
    When I go for walks in the downtown area in my city there are mentally and physically disabled people living on the streets, everywhere. I would bet more so than none disabled people (although I have no data to support that). So, is it fair that only those who have money get the care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    With regards to depression, the majority of depression sufferers are otherwise healthy humans. The highest suicide rate is amongst dentists and doctors. So the fact these handicapped people may suffer depression is also not a good reason to support infanticide.
    Funny (in a morbid sort of way) how this topic is so closely tied with euthanasia in general.

    Although I must admit I kinda just threw that depression one out there. I really am not sure on the statistics for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    So where would the 'mercy' killing end if decided upon based on cost and care to keep an individual alive?
    In the end I don't think it would be based simply on cost alone. However, I would like to point out once more that this practice is much, much more common than people, I think, expect. In China, until recently, most first born girls were killed. The reasons for this are not important to my point; that being that China is one of the most populated countries in the world, and this infanticide seems to have no effect on that.

    The babies will never know themselves. Who else suffers? especially if it is the parents decision.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    The babies will never know themselves. Who else suffers? especially if it is the parents decision.
    That's the point, I think. It should be the parents' decision. The only other reasons you have for supporting infanticide at the hands of the doctor is the cost to the community, which others have shown that many other people impose a cost to the community (and probably much more than children with heritable, debilitating diseases - these diseases are not NEARLY as common as smoking and car accidents etc and the debilitated individuals that they create. By volume alone these people cost the community far, far more.), and the fact that it's more common than we think. So what? Slavery is probably still more common than most people think. The frequency of the activity isn't enough to justify it.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    That's the point, I think. It should be the parents' decision.
    The reason I suggest the doctor make the decision is because the parents may not be competent to do so. If the parents make the decision I would think they should at least do so before hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    The only other reasons you have for supporting infanticide at the hands of the doctor is the cost to the community, which others have shown that many other people impose a cost to the community (and probably much more than children with heritable, debilitating diseases - these diseases are not NEARLY as common as smoking and car accidents etc and the debilitated individuals that they create. By volume alone these people cost the community far, far more.)...
    Actually there is another reason. There is no shortage of baby making supplies (sperm and eggs that is). A severely disabled child will not be able to function well in society. It's not so much about diseases as physical deformities or the babies just being born so unhealthy that they will suffer severe, permanent damage during recovery. In most cases the doctors do take the liberty. In some they don't. A person who smokes can still function and go to work, or whatever they do. A person in a car accident may or may not be able to function well but they are a matured human and should have a choice in the matter. These days you don't get killed in battle or go off in the woods to die alone. Instead you sit in a bed hooked up to machines for as long as they can keep you. This is why many support euthanasia. It's the same with the infant except that they are not matured enough to make the decision themselves.

    The attachment of the parents to the baby can be very strong when the baby is born, thus I believe the decision should be made before hand or the doctor should make the decision.

    An infant is not self aware and more can be produced if one goes wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    ...and the fact that it's more common than we think. So what? Slavery is probably still more common than most people think. The frequency of the activity isn't enough to justify it.
    Yes the wonderful analogies. Slavery, Hitler, Stalin, etc.
    What does not justify it? The point behind that fact that it happens frequently is that it apparently is justified by someone. Why? Why shouldn't it be? Obviously it's a topic that should not be ignored; and hasn't been ignored for a very long time.

    The greatest argument I have ever found on stopping infanticide is that it is immoral. It is comparable to so and so. So why was so and so immoral and how is it comparable? It is assumed to be immoral without being based on any (at least not any given) logic. I hear/ read "Who would do such a thing?", "That's just wrong!", "How can you support this?". I say: "Many people do this", "Why is it 'just wrong'? "I support it for many of the above reasons".

    So far three people have voted it is immoral yet, I have been given no reasons why. Or if I have, than I have missed them.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    So far three people have voted it is immoral yet, I have been given no reasons why. Or if I have, than I have missed them.
    How about because you want to murder babies? Your cold calculations are like that of a psychopath, Bob.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Actually there is another reason. There is no shortage of baby making supplies (sperm and eggs that is). A severely disabled child will not be able to function well in society. It's not so much about diseases as physical deformities or the babies just being born so unhealthy that they will suffer severe, permanent damage during recovery. In most cases the doctors do take the liberty. In some they don't. A person who smokes can still function and go to work, or whatever they do. A person in a car accident may or may not be able to function well but they are a matured human and should have a choice in the matter. These days you don't get killed in battle or go off in the woods to die alone. Instead you sit in a bed hooked up to machines for as long as they can keep you. This is why many support euthanasia. It's the same with the infant except that they are not matured enough to make the decision themselves.

    The attachment of the parents to the baby can be very strong when the baby is born, thus I believe the decision should be made before hand or the doctor should make the decision.
    Are not parents mature adults? And why do think that the attachment a parent feels for their child will necessarily cloud their judgement more than the attachment an adult feels for their own life? Some parents will choose to abort the baby. Some adults may choose euthanasia. But other parents will want to keep that child and give it as much life as they can, and some debilitated adults will choose to have as much life as they can. You also say that doctors should make the decision in infanticide because parents may be unable to do so. Well, by that reasoning, a debilitated adult may also be unable to do so. Yet you don't seem to think a doctor should decide whether or not to euthanize an adult patient. Doctors can explain the situation to the mature adults involved.

    Yes the wonderful analogies. Slavery, Hitler, Stalin, etc.
    What does not justify it? The point behind that fact that it happens frequently is that it apparently is justified by someone. Why? Why shouldn't it be? Obviously it's a topic that should not be ignored; and hasn't been ignored for a very long time.
    The same logic still applies here. Just because somebody feels justified in it doesn't mean we as a society should deem it acceptable. What should be acceptable is what is best for the majority of the members of a societal group (this is an ideal, of course, but the general idea still applies). However, I think this is kind of a moot point, because I'm not opposed to infanticide in general. When the well-being of the baby is the consideration and the parents make the decision, then I find that to be acceptable. But it should be the parents' decision, not the doctor's. And even in the examples you gave of infanticide occurring in other places, I'm pretty sure that was still the parents' decision, not the doctors. I disagree with the justification of infanticide in classic China because that was done based on what gender was of more value to the family, not out of consideration for the life of the child.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I'm not opposed to infanticide in general.
    I'm having a hard time believing what I am reading on this thread. Have you ever killed anything, let alone a human being? Do you think you could take a hammer and whack that baby over the head?

    The closest thing I can relate this to is when I was a teenager and my dog had a litter of mutts due to my negligence in letting her out of the house when she was in heat. My solution to the matter was to kill the pups which I started to do by whacking their heads against a concrete block. After the first 3 or 4 puppies, I lost my stomach for the job. We gave the rest of the pups away. Now just try to imagine doing that to human babies, I don't care if they have some kind of defect.

    A while back, there was a thread about capital punishment, and it seemed like most everybody was against it. I guess you people think it is okay for the state to support a vicious murderer for the rest of their lives, but you have no problem killing an innocent baby to relieve the burden on society?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I'm not opposed to infanticide in general.
    I'm having a hard time believing what I am reading on this thread. Have you ever killed anything, let alone a human being? Do you think you could take a hammer and whack that baby over the head?

    The closest thing I can relate this to is when I was a teenager and my dog had a litter of mutts due to my negligence in letting her out of the house when she was in heat. My solution to the matter was to kill the pups which I started to do by whacking their heads against a concrete block. After the first 3 or 4 puppies, I lost my stomach for the job. We gave the rest of the pups away. Now just try to imagine doing that to human babies, I don't care if they have some kind of defect.

    A while back, there was a thread about capital punishment, and it seemed like most everybody was against it. I guess you people think it is okay for the state to support a vicious murderer for the rest of their lives, but you have no problem killing an innocent baby to relieve the burden on society?
    millions of babies are torn limb from limb and then their skulls bashed in and brains sucked out without any anaesthetic at anything from 30-40 weeks gestation. These are babies which are capable of surviving outside the womb. It's called abortion. Monsterous, but Doctors do it, their nurses help, the mothers consent and the tax payers fund it.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    A while back, there was a thread about capital punishment, and it seemed like most everybody was against it. I guess you people think it is okay for the state to support a vicious murderer for the rest of their lives, but you have no problem killing an innocent baby to relieve the burden on society?
    Not for society. Society shouldn't have much say in a decision like this. It's a decision made by the parents when they have a child who is likely to live a tenuous life of pain and debilitation. Infantile Tay Sachs, for example, is the accumulation of fat in the neurons of the brain. It is increasingly painful, eventually preventing the child from being able to see, hear, or swallow, with atrophying muscles and finally paralysis. They die by the time they are 4 or 5.

    And since DaBOB previously established that infanticide is any killing of a child, I would assume that most cases like these are ones where the disease is detected prior to actual birth and an abortion can be done. So no, though apparently I seem to convey this, I do not support the grabbing of a newborn by the ankle and bashing it around until it is dead.

    And as a side-note, yes, I have killed things. It's part of my job. I kill mice. I have killed a great deal of them, as well as putting some of them through a good deal of stress and/or pain before I do, and will continue to kill a great deal of them as long as I work where I do. And I do it because every little life that passes through my hands is a step closer towards finding treatment for another disease that afflicts children with increasing pain and debilitation. At some point in the future this whole thread will be moot as technology and medicine advance to the point of either preventing or treating such a child long before a decision like this ever has to be made.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith

    And as a side-note, yes, I have killed things. It's part of my job. I kill mice. I have killed a great deal of them, as well as putting some of them through a good deal of stress and/or pain before I do, and will continue to kill a great deal of them as long as I work where I do. And I do it because every little life that passes through my hands is a step closer towards finding treatment for another disease that afflicts children with increasing pain and debilitation. At some point in the future this whole thread will be moot as technology and medicine advance to the point of either preventing or treating such a child long before a decision like this ever has to be made.

    It's all relative Paralith
    babies and children are as insignificant to some as mice are to you and given the freedom would also act with 'just justification' when destroying them.

    I am sure Hitler felt he had his reasons when he gased the Jews. He was not alone in that feeling either else it would never have happened.

    All forms of killing and torture of humans are justified when the people with the power decide it's ok.

    War....

    When morality slips, it slides all the way to the bottom.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I'm not opposed to infanticide in general.
    I'm having a hard time believing what I am reading on this thread. Have you ever killed anything, let alone a human being? Do you think you could take a hammer and whack that baby over the head?

    The closest thing I can relate this to is when I was a teenager and my dog had a litter of mutts due to my negligence in letting her out of the house when she was in heat. My solution to the matter was to kill the pups which I started to do by whacking their heads against a concrete block. After the first 3 or 4 puppies, I lost my stomach for the job. We gave the rest of the pups away. Now just try to imagine doing that to human babies, I don't care if they have some kind of defect.

    A while back, there was a thread about capital punishment, and it seemed like most everybody was against it. I guess you people think it is okay for the state to support a vicious murderer for the rest of their lives, but you have no problem killing an innocent baby to relieve the burden on society?
    millions of babies are torn limb from limb and then their skulls bashed in and brains sucked out without any anaesthetic at anything from 30-40 weeks gestation. These are babies which are capable of surviving outside the womb. It's called abortion. Monsterous, but Doctors do it, their nurses help, the mothers consent and the tax payers fund it.
    Where are you living? north korea? 30-40 weeks?(especially when the average human pregnancy last 38-40weeks) the UK is maximum of 24 weeks though that was going to be dropped to 20

    France: 12 weeks
    Germany: 12 weeks
    Italy: 13 weeks
    Sweden: 18 weeks
    US: limits after 26 weeks

    As for the initial question, i think the only time i would personally allow it, would be when the suffering was beyond an acceptable level, but this is something i believe should be avaliable for adults(by choice) in similar situations, eg terminal cancer patients etc

    There has been many cases of children born with half a skull and similar and going onto live excellent pain free happy lives, and the comment about the spartans is a very similar line to the nazi's with the whole weeding out imperfections and weaknesses for the benefit of the society as a whole

    As for infanticide for deformaties and mental illness's then i believe that to be totally wrong, if you dontwant or cant handle an imperfect child either allow it up for adoption or dont have kids where theis slight risk is a possibility
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    US: limits after 26 weeks
    Caveman, I think third trimester abortions are rather uncommon, but as far as I know they are the law of the land. The baby is fair game right up until it pops out of the womb, a woman's right which the Supreme Court somehow discovered in the US Constitution in Roe v Wade.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    US: limits after 26 weeks
    Caveman, I think third trimester abortions are rather uncommon, but as far as I know they are the law of the land. The baby is fair game right up until it pops out of the womb, a woman's right which the Supreme Court somehow discovered in the US Constitution in Roe v Wade.
    this is exactly correct, it happens even and including in the UK.

    I knew someone who had an abortion at 5 months in the Uk. They'll do anything as long as you pay for it. The baby was healthy too. No reason to abort except mother didn't want it.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    US: limits after 26 weeks
    Caveman, I think third trimester abortions are rather uncommon, but as far as I know they are the law of the land. The baby is fair game right up until it pops out of the womb, a woman's right which the Supreme Court somehow discovered in the US Constitution in Roe v Wade.
    oh right , im not totally anti-abortion, but thats way to long, in my opinion, i personally believe the longest term possible before abortion should be the shortest time that it can live outside the body un-assisted(in normal conditions), whichi think stands at 22weeks? unless im misinformed?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17237979/

    which would mean the UK proposed cutof point of 20-21 weeks a preferred choice for myself and if it was totally down to me then i'd choose 16 weeks

    Just looked at the uk regulations for abortion, and it can be anytime upto 24weeks legally as long as:-

    The Abortion Act 1967 covers the UK mainland (England, Scotland, and Wales), but not Northern Ireland. The law states that:

    1. abortions must be carried out in a hospital, or a specialised licensed clinic, and that


    2. two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy.
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    US: limits after 26 weeks
    Caveman, I think third trimester abortions are rather uncommon, but as far as I know they are the law of the land. The baby is fair game right up until it pops out of the womb, a woman's right which the Supreme Court somehow discovered in the US Constitution in Roe v Wade.
    this is exactly correct, it happens even and including in the UK.

    I knew someone who had an abortion at 5 months in the Uk. They'll do anything as long as you pay for it. The baby was healthy too. No reason to abort except mother didn't want it.
    yeah, but 5months is below the 24week legal limit, where as 30-40 is not permissable in the UK
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    How about because you want to murder babies? Your cold calculations are like that of a psychopath, Bob.
    Harold I will admit that some of my beliefs are on the borderline of being socially acceptable; however, I can assure you that I am not a psychopath. I simply ride the border, I don't cross over it.

    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    What should be acceptable is what is best for the majority of the members of a societal group (this is an ideal, of course, but the general idea still applies).
    Interesting. I've never seen this logic used to argue against infanticide (not to say that's what you were using it for). Most people who are against infanticide use the duty principle; i.e. it is our duty to keep the babies alive.
    You, on the other hand, are using the majority (there's a better word for it) principle, which could go both ways. If the majority is against infanticide than so be it. Or if infanticide could prove beneficial to the majority than it would work out the other way.

    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Are not parents mature adults? And why do think that the attachment a parent feels for their child will necessarily cloud their judgement more than the attachment an adult feels for their own life?
    When faced with death I would say that many people would do seemingly immoral things to save their own life. I suggest the parents decide beforehand because their attachment will be stronger when the baby is born. They may make a decision they'd wish they hadn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    All forms of killing and torture of humans are justified when the people with the power decide it's ok.
    The problem these days being that individuality gives people a false sense of power.

    So here's the next bit. If it is murder to perform infanticide what makes it so? Is it because the new life form resembles that of a human (not to say it isn't)? Is it because it is a human? At what point is something a human? Are all the lost sperm cells or unfertilized eggs "murdered"? What makes a born baby different from one still in the womb? Is the baby suffering when you let it die? Is it any different than having an arm amputated? Is it because the baby has a human brain?

    I will admit I had a hard time killing the first fish I ever caught (mentally and physically, I didn't realize they still moved after they were dead). That doesn't mean I should stop going fishing. Look at a slaughter house for cattle. Thousands of full grown cattle murdered for our enjoyment. Humans have always been in a constant state of war. We say it's a bad thing yet we can't seem to stop it (do we really hate it that much?).

    Many people these days live far away from death. I have heard a theory that people enjoy roller coaster rides so much because they can't get the same experience from killing anymore (I'm speaking of war not psychopaths). Whether we like it or not, death is a part of who we are. We all die, along with everything around us; yet the life itself lives forever. Why do we die? Because our bodies are "out of date", so to speak. So, what if a baby is born with an already "out of date" (or obsolete) body. Nature creates the abnormalities. One might say it would be thus unnatural to kill them. Or maybe it is unnatural for us to stand in the way and keep them alive.

    This is a tough subject, which is why it must be discussed. Thanks for all the statistics by the way.

    paralith, I'm sure one day we will all be able to "jack in" and get our daily DNA updates and live as one, forever; but, that day has not yet come. However, I will do my best to be here when it does; not to know nirvana but to see the apocalypse.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Its wrong period. Animals don't do it so what does that make us? If you don't want the child, you should ensure you don't get it in the first place, you do that by being a
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    ...mature adult...
    .

    Although I do agree with paralith, IF it is a sciecne fact that a child will die eventually and suffer great pain, then they should be saved that pain, but still I'm not accepting that opinion with wide open arms.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Its wrong period. Animals don't do it so what does that make us?
    Actually, if an animal where to have a severely disabled or premature new born, if the elements don't kill it a predator will. It's completely natural.

    Humans on the other hand are in doors and have no predators. Not to mention our medical technology.

    Are we playing God?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Its wrong period. Animals don't do it so what does that make us?
    Actually, if an animal where to have a severely disabled or premature new born, if the elements don't kill it a predator will. It's completely natural.

    Humans on the other hand are in doors and have no predators. Not to mention our medical technology.

    Are we playing God?
    It depends on the definition of how one can play 'God' and what exactly 'God' is.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Caveman
    YES they do abort in this country right up to the due date.

    SCWillmer
    YES Animals do kill their own babies and other babies in their own species group or species groups of other animals. It is to prevent competition, threat, dilution of gene pool etc.


    wakey wakey folks.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    SCWillmer
    YES Animals do kill their own babies and other babies in their own species group or species groups of other animals. It is to prevent competition, threat, dilution of gene pool etc.
    But we're supposed to be civilised aren't we and different from animals? Reall y Evolved and all that.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    SCWillmer
    YES Animals do kill their own babies and other babies in their own species group or species groups of other animals. It is to prevent competition, threat, dilution of gene pool etc.
    But we're supposed to be civilised aren't we and different from animals? Reall y Evolved and all that.
    I agree
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    SCWillmer
    YES Animals do kill their own babies and other babies in their own species group or species groups of other animals. It is to prevent competition, threat, dilution of gene pool etc.
    But we're supposed to be civilised aren't we and different from animals? Reall y Evolved and all that.
    I agree
    Male animals kill unrelated infants to (1) eliminate potential future competitors for themselves and their own offspring, and (2) to bring the mother into heat again much faster than she would if left to completely raise her infant first, allowing the male to mate with her instead.

    This is not why people commit infanticide, nor is it done in the way that animals, including chimps, do it. It's done to infants who are healthy and well and may be as old as 1 or 2 years, it's done violently and painfully, and often the infant is divvied up and eaten afterwards. So I'd say we're far above that.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    SCWillmer
    YES Animals do kill their own babies and other babies in their own species group or species groups of other animals. It is to prevent competition, threat, dilution of gene pool etc.
    But we're supposed to be civilised aren't we and different from animals? Reall y Evolved and all that.
    I agree
    Male animals kill unrelated infants to (1) eliminate potential future competitors for themselves and their own offspring, and (2) to bring the mother into heat again much faster than she would if left to completely raise her infant first, allowing the male to mate with her instead.

    This is not why people commit infanticide, nor is it done in the way that animals, including chimps, do it. It's done to infants who are healthy and well and may be as old as 1 or 2 years, it's done violently and painfully, and often the infant is divvied up and eaten afterwards. So I'd say we're far above that.
    Only because we don't have the physical strength to rip limbs off, but child abuse statistics confirm human children are indeed harmed and killed by human adults.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    SCWillmer
    YES Animals do kill their own babies and other babies in their own species group or species groups of other animals. It is to prevent competition, threat, dilution of gene pool etc.
    But we're supposed to be civilised aren't we and different from animals? Reall y Evolved and all that.
    I agree
    Male animals kill unrelated infants to (1) eliminate potential future competitors for themselves and their own offspring, and (2) to bring the mother into heat again much faster than she would if left to completely raise her infant first, allowing the male to mate with her instead.

    This is not why people commit infanticide, nor is it done in the way that animals, including chimps, do it. It's done to infants who are healthy and well and may be as old as 1 or 2 years, it's done violently and painfully, and often the infant is divvied up and eaten afterwards. So I'd say we're far above that.
    Same event=death, alternate principle.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    "Civilized" is a relative term. We are different from animals. We are capable of self recognition and abstract thought. An infant is not.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    SCWillmer
    YES Animals do kill their own babies and other babies in their own species group or species groups of other animals. It is to prevent competition, threat, dilution of gene pool etc.
    But we're supposed to be civilised aren't we and different from animals? Reall y Evolved and all that.
    I agree
    Male animals kill unrelated infants to (1) eliminate potential future competitors for themselves and their own offspring, and (2) to bring the mother into heat again much faster than she would if left to completely raise her infant first, allowing the male to mate with her instead.

    This is not why people commit infanticide, nor is it done in the way that animals, including chimps, do it. It's done to infants who are healthy and well and may be as old as 1 or 2 years, it's done violently and painfully, and often the infant is divvied up and eaten afterwards. So I'd say we're far above that.
    Only because we don't have the physical strength to rip limbs off, but child abuse statistics confirm human children are indeed harmed and killed by human adults.
    I thought the subject of the thread was purposeful infanticide, not general violence towards children that sometimes results in death.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    SCWillmer
    YES Animals do kill their own babies and other babies in their own species group or species groups of other animals. It is to prevent competition, threat, dilution of gene pool etc.
    But we're supposed to be civilised aren't we and different from animals? Reall y Evolved and all that.
    I agree
    Male animals kill unrelated infants to (1) eliminate potential future competitors for themselves and their own offspring, and (2) to bring the mother into heat again much faster than she would if left to completely raise her infant first, allowing the male to mate with her instead.

    This is not why people commit infanticide, nor is it done in the way that animals, including chimps, do it. It's done to infants who are healthy and well and may be as old as 1 or 2 years, it's done violently and painfully, and often the infant is divvied up and eaten afterwards. So I'd say we're far above that.
    Only because we don't have the physical strength to rip limbs off, but child abuse statistics confirm human children are indeed harmed and killed by human adults.
    I thought the subject of the thread was purposeful infanticide, not general violence towards children that sometimes results in death.
    it was an answer to your comment not the first comment. That is allowed you know.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Since we're trying to maximize social utility here, why don't we eat the carcasses of the dead babies? Just because your kid's deformed doesn't mean it's not chock full of nutritional value!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    "Civilized" is a relative term. We are different from animals. We are capable of self recognition and abstract thought. An infant is not.
    So your saying that infants don't have the right to live because they are not capable of abstract thought?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    "Civilized" is a relative term. We are different from animals. We are capable of self recognition and abstract thought. An infant is not.
    So your saying that infants don't have the right to live because they are not capable of abstract thought?
    I'm simply comparing infants to animals.
    Of course an infant has a right to life. It's more a matter of their inability to realize that right.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Of course an infant has a right to life. It's more a matter of their inability to realize that right.
    Yeah, we gotta get 'em before they know what hit 'em!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Of course an infant has a right to life. It's more a matter of their inability to realize that right.
    Yeah, we gotta get 'em before they know what hit 'em!
    Now you're getting it.

    Y'all are making this sound worse than it is. You don't beat them or rip their limbs off. The doctors simply set them aside on the cart and they die shortly after.

    You step on insects and kill plants on a daily basis. You eat meat the belonged to animals that were slaughtered in much worse, and painful ways.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Of course an infant has a right to life. It's more a matter of their inability to realize that right.
    Yeah, we gotta get 'em before they know what hit 'em!
    Now you're getting it.

    Y'all are making this sound worse than it is. You don't beat them or rip their limbs off. The doctors simply set them aside on the cart and they die shortly after.

    You step on insects and kill plants on a daily basis. You eat meat the belonged to animals that were slaughtered in much worse, and painful ways.
    So if there were a dog, or human being in the middle of the road going to get hit by a bus-which one would you save?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Well if it were *my* dog and say, Osama Bin-Laden - I'd save my dog. Though that's a rare circumstance :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Well if it were *my* dog and say, Osama Bin-Laden - I'd save my dog. Though that's a rare circumstance :P
    Your best friend or a foregin unknown dog. A human and dog you don't know. You'd always save the human.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Well if it were *my* dog and say, Osama Bin-Laden - I'd save my dog. Though that's a rare circumstance :P
    Your best friend or a foregin unknown dog. A human and dog you don't know. You'd always save the human.
    I'd push a van full of puppies in the path of an oncoming truck if it'd save a friend of mine (or just about anyone, really). I'm apparently not the right person to answer these questions though because if your point is human life (babies, adults, or whatever) has more value than animal life, I completely agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    To me the basic questions are: At what time does a fetus become aware of its surroundings? Is it possible to anesthetize a fetus? Then the cut-off point for abortion should be before the fetus becomes aware and only if the fetus can be anesthetized. Any time after would be immoral.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    To me the basic questions are: At what time does a fetus become aware of its surroundings? Is it possible to anesthetize a fetus? Then the cut-off point for abortion should be before the fetus becomes aware and only if the fetus can be anesthetized. Any time after would be immoral.
    Its immoral the second the cell reaches the egg.

    Because that one child dies, the line of future children reachs a huge number. You are in essence not allowing billions to live. Mass murder in a chronological sense. If you don't want a kid, wear a condom ffs.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    To me the basic questions are: At what time does a fetus become aware of its surroundings? Is it possible to anesthetize a fetus? Then the cut-off point for abortion should be before the fetus becomes aware and only if the fetus can be anesthetized. Any time after would be immoral.
    Its immoral the second the cell reaches the egg.

    Because that one child dies, the line of future children reachs a huge number. You are in essence not allowing billions to live. Mass murder in a chronological sense. If you don't want a kid, wear a condom ffs.
    Wouldn't wearing a condom be committing mass murder since the poor little spermy would never even reach the egg.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    To me the basic questions are: At what time does a fetus become aware of its surroundings? Is it possible to anesthetize a fetus? Then the cut-off point for abortion should be before the fetus becomes aware and only if the fetus can be anesthetized. Any time after would be immoral.
    Its immoral the second the cell reaches the egg.

    Because that one child dies, the line of future children reachs a huge number. You are in essence not allowing billions to live. Mass murder in a chronological sense. If you don't want a kid, wear a condom ffs.
    Like DaBOB has done, by following this line of logic it's immoral every time you let a sperm or egg die without at least trying your darndest to allow it to become a human being. A woman should hold a funeral every time she has a period.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith

    Like DaBOB has done, by following this line of logic it's immoral every time you let a sperm or egg die without at least trying your darndest to allow it to become a human being. A woman should hold a funeral every time she has a period.
    Now you're just being ridiculous, can't believe you can turn onto 'dense' mode so easily.

    The jury is very much out with regards to what gestation perioda human fetus becomes aware of pain etc. As far as I know there are no such considerations for sperm or period blood.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Every single sperm and egg have a potential to become a human being. The moral problem arise when they meet.

    Useless arguments like "If you take an abortion, you might kill Beethoven" are irrelevant at this point, because whether you give birth to Hitler or Beethoven, both are still humans who have just as much right to live as any other. We never know who we give birth to, that is a subject to chance.

    A good argument is that even though the fetus cannot percieve, isn't self-aware or can't feel, doesn't make it less of a human as a retard isn't less of a human than someone who isn't a retard.

    I find this argument hard to tackle.

    Every life has the right to live, but when does life start? When the sperm meets the egg or when the fetus can feel? The development starts when the sperm meets the egg, but is that when life starts? Saying it is immoral to take abortion after that is probably right, but if the clump of cells isn't even aware of its existence, should we at all call it human? Humans give birth to humans, frogs give birth to frogs, so it is human right?

    Let's take a look at the parents. They are the reason for the fetus, they are its creators. Following this, they have should have authority over their creation, as God has authority over his (lol, imagine Pro-Lifers hearing me say that). The parents made a choice to have sex, with the risk of having sperm meet egg. It is their choice to or to not have an abortion. When the life isn't conscious, it is their decision to dispose of the clump of cells or not, even if it has the potational to become a human.

    It isn't immoral as long as the parents are allowed to make the choice, why? The clump of cells might become a human, but at this point you can't even call it human. Let's just call it a clump of cells created by the parents with the potential of becoming a human like every other sperm and egg. Whether or not it becomes a human is up to the parents.

    Am I making any sense so far?

    It takes about 20 weeks before the fetus actually feels pain, right?

    (Notice: Small edits has been done on this post)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Every single sperm and egg have a potential to become a human being. The moral problem arise when they meet.
    I don't consider a 24 week gestation fetus a potential human, I consider it 'A' human given it is pretty fully developed and can with little help survive if born at that time.

    My ex bf was born at 24 weeks as was his twin 40yrs ago and they are both strappping 6ft'ers no problems there.

    A sperm is not a human, and when it meets an egg , 'they' are not 'a' human. They can not think, feel, endure pain or sufferring. Of course there are other considerations if you are religious and believe in a soul etc. Otherwise I do not consider a recently fertilised egg, a 'human being', anymore than I consider an egg yolk to be chicken.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Otherwise I do not consider a recently fertilised egg, a 'human being', anymore than I consider an egg yolk to be chicken.
    Me neither^^

    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    It isn't immoral as long as the parents are allowed to make the choice, why? The clump of cells might become a human, but at this point you can't even call it human. Let's just call it a clump of cells created by the parents with the potential of becoming a human like every other sperm and egg. Whether or not it becomes a human is up to the parents.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Sophomore Pikkhaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    140
    That's 100% right. A clump of cells
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Pikkhaud
    That's 100% right. A clump of cells
    And what are you?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    So we (those who just agreed with Obivously) are saying that it's o.k. if the parents make the decision before the baby is capable of feeling pain?

    Does that mean it's not o.k. to do so if the baby is born? Is it wrong to look past our emotional attachment to a baby and consider whether it will live a good life or if we can provide it with one? We are going to inflict much, much more pain on it during life; are we not? If it is not conscious of it's own death does the pain matter?


    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    when does life start?
    If you were asking me I would suggest that life never ends in the first place; nor does it start. Apparently it just is. The sperm cell is not dead. Neither is the egg. They meet and the fetus is not dead. Death never occurs, just perpetual life.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    In the USA infanticide often takes the form of allowing the parents to forego certain medical proceedures. There's a stomach problem common to children with Downs syndrome that, left untreated, causes them to die slow deaths from dehydration. The proceedure to correct it is extremely well developed and easy to perform. Yet many parents opt to deny permission for it.

    My actual perspective is that there's no reason not to let someone live. If healthcare costs are too high, that tells us we need to look for ways to fix our healthcare system. If we see cutting down on the people who need health care as an answer, that just shows our desperation.


    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    To me the basic questions are: At what time does a fetus become aware of its surroundings? Is it possible to anesthetize a fetus? Then the cut-off point for abortion should be before the fetus becomes aware and only if the fetus can be anesthetized. Any time after would be immoral.
    Its immoral the second the cell reaches the egg.

    Because that one child dies, the line of future children reachs a huge number. You are in essence not allowing billions to live. Mass murder in a chronological sense. If you don't want a kid, wear a condom ffs.
    You think overpopulation is better? The collapse of world economies inevitably leads to genocidal wars, and masses of starving people. Even if the economy were run absolutely perfectly, a large enough population would still break it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Of course an infant has a right to life. It's more a matter of their inability to realize that right.
    Yeah, we gotta get 'em before they know what hit 'em!
    Now you're getting it.

    Y'all are making this sound worse than it is. You don't beat them or rip their limbs off. The doctors simply set them aside on the cart and they die shortly after.

    You step on insects and kill plants on a daily basis. You eat meat the belonged to animals that were slaughtered in much worse, and painful ways.
    I think animals are usually killed in a humane way, unless there's a particularly good reason to do otherwise (like with lobsters).
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •