# Kill The Infants!



## beckybird

In this Journal of Medical Ethics, some people believe it is alright to kill infants in after-birth abortions.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full

Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

The rest of the article is just as shocking.


----------



## Imakcerka

Interesting. I'm okay with abortion, no flames please. I'm certainly not okay with killing an infant... though I could certainly see how some would be okay with this if in fact baby was faced with extreme circumstances. That being said there really isn't much of an excuse for it when there are so many other options before the baby is born to determine whether or not the baby will in fact have a long suffer-able road ahead. This part really bothered me though

Although it is reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is against the best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. It might be maintained that 'even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down's syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child'.3 But, in fact, people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.5

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the *state economically provides for their care.* On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

Based on the idea that the child will be a burden to society and Tax payers... Holy interesting!

The Downs issue is personal to me though. As I suppose most people will be able to find something that will be personal to them about it. My great uncle was downs and as a kid he was my only friend. We were buddies. Stole candy from the store together and played barbies. He rocked! Rest in peace Tio Mario.


----------



## TiredX2

I am going to leave this here for now. Please remember that debates of abortion are not welcome on MDC. Please, also, consider your word choice.


----------



## Super Pickle

WARNING: TRIGGER

I wasn't able to access the article. However, your summary reminded me of something I read recently. I got a book from the library called "Message from an Unknown Chinese Mother" in which a popular Chinese broadcast journalist shared stories of Chinese mothers who had given up their baby girls (or had them taken from them). The book explores how the one-child policy, the traditional preference for boys, and women's lack of options lead to sex-selective abortions, infanticide, and abandonment of girls. The author wanted to help Chinese adoptees understand why they might have been given up.

Anyway, the journalist shares how she was at the home of some peasants when a baby girl was born and immediately tossed into the slops pail to drown. She tried to grab it, but two policemen who were escorting her held her back, saying" We do things differently here." She protested that it was a living child, but they simply said, "It's not a child. If it were a child, we would be taking care of it now, wouldn't we?" It occurred to me that in these cultures, it was only a child if they wanted to keep it. And no one wanted to keep a first-born girl. They wanted to have a boy for the first born. So if it was a girl, it was "not a child."


----------



## beckybird

That story gave me chills. This is what I fear could happen someday.

Think the great USA is immune to infanticide? I hope it is, and we must work hard to keep it that way. Do not be so naive as to think it could never happen here. We should not allow such "ethical debates" (ha, ethical) to ever become a reality. Don't let anyone tell you a one child policy is good either---let's learn from China.

This article is just the beginning of a slippery slope. If infants are allowed to be killed, who will be next? The elderly? Severely disabled people? Will only healthy, contributing people be allowed to live, while others are labeled "not a person" because they do not contribute or are financial burdens? (Here's a related link--Bill Gates on death panels.....deprive an elderly person the last months of life so you can use the money to employ 10 teachers. 



 )

This could be the start of something horrible, and I want to warn you what is going on. We will not tolerate the practice of infanticide.


----------



## Cyllya

I can't see the article either, so I'm going off the OP's summary....

Even though I'm pro-choice, I often find myself disturbed by any pro-choice arguments in the vein of "Fetuses aren't people because..." since most of them are equally applicable to born babies. Our culture is generally quite strongly against the killing of born babies to the extent that any "It's okay to kill babies because..." argument will automatically be considered absurd and evil regardless of what reasons it gives. Are you sure the authors of that paper aren't actually making a round-about anti-abortion argument, by pointing out that those not-a-person arguments are the same for both babies and fetuses/embryos?

Quote:


> Think the great USA is immune to infanticide? I hope it is, and we must work hard to keep it that way. Do not be so naive as to think it could never happen here. We should not allow such "ethical debates" (ha, ethical) to ever become a reality. Don't let anyone tell you a one child policy is good either---let's learn from China.


Well, it's comforting to keep in mind that society seems to get nicer to children (and everybody else, for that matter) over time. I think abortion being illegal is a relatively newfangled idea in the grand scheme of things. Some countries are making it so you're not allowed to hit your kids at all, and others are at least putting restrictions on it. Et cetera.


----------



## beckybird

Ha! I'm almost glad that the article has been lost. Does this mean they removed it? Could an overwhelming negative response be the reason? I don't know, but I assure you, the article was atrocious! I read the entire piece, and it was certainly not anti-abortion. I understand that people are entitled to beliefs, and it seems the authors genuinely believe newborns are not persons yet. (I wonder how long it takes a baby to finally reach the status of Person. A day? A week?)


----------



## Imakcerka

I'm wondering if you remember the title and author? I did read it when you put it up originally. I wish I had copied it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> Ha! I'm almost glad that the article has been lost. Does this mean they removed it? Could an overwhelming negative response be the reason? I don't know, but I assure you, the article was atrocious! I read the entire piece, and it was certainly not anti-abortion. I understand that people are entitled to beliefs, and it seems the authors genuinely believe newborns are not persons yet. (I wonder how long it takes a baby to finally reach the status of Person. A day? A week?)


----------



## SimonMom

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

this works


----------



## TiredX2

The problem with the article is that their first tenet is demonstrably false: "The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent." In that the fetus is dependent upon a *specific* woman's body for continuing life and an infant is not dependent upon a *specific* woman's body for life they are fundamentally different. If you start with an incorrect assumption, it is easy to come to an incorrect conclusion.


----------



## beckybird

Thank you Simon mom!

TiredX2, I see your point, and I agree. Now, I know we are not supposed to debate abortion, so I will just add this......according to your conclusion, a fetus is different than a newborn because the fetus is dependent on the specific mother. A newborn is dependent on anybody who can feed and care for it. Well, how would this apply to a late term abortion, where the fetus can survive in a hospital, independent of the mother?

I am not debating abortion, just noting a similarity between newborns and late term abortions, where in both cases the baby can survive without the specific mother.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyllya*
> 
> Well, it's comforting to keep in mind that society seems to get nicer to children (and everybody else, for that matter) over time. I think *abortion being illegal is a relatively newfangled idea* in the grand scheme of things. Some countries are making it so you're not allowed to hit your kids at all, and others are at least putting restrictions on it. Et cetera.


No, abortion was illegal for a long time before Roe v. Wade happened (major supreme court case that legalized abortion and defined the circumstances that it is allowed based on a woman's right to privacy, which was read into "life, liberty, and happiness"). One major reason that abortion was made legal, and the main reason I think it should remain legal, was because it became a public health issue. Women in dire straights sought abortions anyway, and often died because they were unsanitary and very dangerous. Most major hospitals across the country had a "septic ward" for women who were dying from infections due to illegal abortions, and it was clear that abortions needed to be legal to save these womens lives - because even though it was illegal women were seeking abortions anyway.

Abortion is a public health issue, a privacy issue, and a medical issue. It is a decision that should be between a woman and her doctor (and if her doctor doesn't agree, she should find someone else). Period.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> Thank you Simon mom!
> 
> TiredX2, I see your point, and I agree. Now, I know we are not supposed to debate abortion, so I will just add this......according to your conclusion, a fetus is different than a newborn because the fetus is dependent on the specific mother. A newborn is dependent on anybody who can feed and care for it. Well, how would this apply to a late term abortion, where the fetus can survive in a hospital, independent of the mother?
> 
> I am not debating abortion, just noting a similarity between newborns and late term abortions, where in both cases the baby can survive without the specific mother.


At this point in time, I consider the debate over late term abortions to be a red herring.

That said, I have wondered why if *people* are really against late term abortions they don't press to legalize a process where a mother at ____ weeks could give up complete parental rights, have the child and leave. I do not know, though, how doctors would react---- there are considerable health risks that accompany prematurity.


----------



## TiredX2

This is why I consider debates over abortions after age of viability to be a red herring (first source I found, didn't go looking long, I am positive there are better sources):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5758875

Quote:


> Abortions after fetal viability are extremely rare. Half of the 1.5 million abortions in the U.S. each year take place within the first eight weeks of pregancy; nine in 10 occur within the first 12 weeks. Less than 1 percent are performed after 20 weeks.(11) *Some 300-600 abortions -- or up to four one-hundredths of 1 percent -- are performed after 26 weeks.(*12)


Further:

Quote:


> Forty states have enacted legislation severely limiting abortions after fetal viability. Laws in 32 states limit abortions after viability to cases in which the woman's life at serious risk or her health is endangered, although five of the 32 also permit abortions in cases of fetal defect. Laws in seven states permit abortions after viability only when the woman's life is endangered; California is the only state where laws ban late abortions for any reason.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
> 
> That said, I have wondered why if *people* are really against late term abortions they don't press to legalize a process where a mother at ____ weeks could give up complete parental rights, have the child and leave. I do not know, though, how doctors would react---- there are considerable health risks that accompany prematurity.


The reason this will never happen is that the healthcare costs associated with preemie births are HUGE - and the government doesn't want to bear those costs. Taxpayers don't want to bear those costs.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> The reason this will never happen is that the healthcare costs associated with preemie births are HUGE - and the government doesn't want to bear those costs. Taxpayers don't want to bear those costs.


Yes, that is certainly a reason. I would think, though, that a pro-life organization would start up with fundraising to support it. Hmmmm


----------



## LynnS6

I'd point out that the article is by philosophers and not MDs. Philosophers are engaged in the business of seeing how far intellectual claims can be pushed. Because of that I can't take the arguments too seriously. (OK, I'll admit to have been put off philosophy completely by having to sit through one too many really really boring philosophy talks in my grad program.) If you reject their initial premise, then their argument falls through.


----------



## Turquesa

> Originally Posted by *LynnS6*
> 
> I'd point out that the article is by philosophers and not MDs. Philosophers are engaged in the business of seeing how far intellectual claims can be pushed. Because of that I can't take the arguments too seriously. (OK, I'll admit to have been put off philosophy completely by having to sit through one too many really really boring philosophy talks in my grad program.) If you reject their initial premise, then their argument falls through.


One of my philosophy professors said that historically, the most influential philosophies tend to pre-date actual practice by about 50 years. Time will tell how influential these particular philosophers are, but if you read the article, you'll see that they're practically pilfering a highly influential philosopher, Peter Singer, who articulated this argument in his book, Practical Ethics. Like Singer, the authors are relying on a utilitarian philosophy of what's best for The Greater Good. Such arguments are often used to justify sending troops to war, (go fight and die for freedom, you country, etc.), and for compulsory vaccination, ("collateral damage" from bad vaccine reactions is OK because we kept disease at bay). Here's an example of that philosophy from the article's intro (emphasis my own):

Quote:


> It might be maintained that 'even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down's syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child'.3 But, in fact, people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.5
> 
> *Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.* On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.


I'm not much of a utilitarian (definitely not to this degree of fanaticism!), so this gives me the heeby-jeebies. The mentally ill, homeless, physically disabled, elderly, substance abusers, and so many other populations could be defined as being "an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole..."

As far as their premise goes, (i.e. that there is no morally relevant distinction between a fetus and newborn), when it comes to making those fine distinctions, all that I hear is subjectivity and arbitrarity. "If you're THIS dependent, (e.g. fed by breast or bottle, breathing oxygenated air), it's wrong to kill you. But if you're THAT dependent, (e.g. fed by placenta, ingesting my amniotic fluid), it's OK."

So I, for one, accept the authors' premise of equating a fetus to a newborn because I've yet to hear an intellectually or ethically sound defense of killing somebody at one level of dependency or phase of development versus another. As far as my own ethics go, I err on the side of acceptance and non-discrimination.

On that note, however, I'd be interested in what the authors consider to be a cut-off point. At what phase of development is it no longer OK to kill a newborn? Singer says 30 days, but even pediatricians know that developmental milestones happen at different times for different children--especially the disabled, although these authors justify infanticide for the able-bodied--so it it's hardly logical to slap a specific date when--Poof! Magic!--it's no longer OK to kill someone.

Interesting piece! Thanks for posting, Becky Bird!


----------



## Turquesa

Quote:
Originally Posted by *TiredX2* 

I am going to leave this here for now. Please remember that debates of abortion are not welcome on MDC. Please, also, consider your word choice.

Well, perhaps you can clarify a couple of things. I once state my views on abortion without challenging someone else's, and a mod removed the post while accusing me of "debating abortion." It looks like people are sharing their views here, so to clarify....we get to share them, but no one is allowed to challenge them, right?

Also, would you mind clarifying what you mean by "word choice?" That criteria can be quite subjective depending on your own personal views.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *TiredX2* 

At this point in time, I consider the debate over late term abortions to be a red herring.

Well, taking your numbers at face value for the sake of argument, that's still 300-600 annual babies/infants/fetuses/feta-babies&#8230;or whatever you want to call human offspring at this face of development. (See what I mean about word choice?)

If the numbers have been in that range since Roe v. Wade in 1973, that's 39 years worth of late-term abortions, or 11,700 to 23,400 total. Those *are* real casualties-not just abstractions to be dismissed as "red herrings"-and the majority were done on healthy mothers carrying healthy offspring. (Yes, that last link is RTL, but it's hard to argue with the citations).

So like Becky Bird, I'm not "picking" a debate, but I'm still curious to hear your answer to her question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by *BeckyBird* 

Now, I know we are not supposed to debate abortion, so I will just add this......according to your conclusion, a fetus is different than a newborn because the fetus is dependent on the specific mother. A newborn is dependent on anybody who can feed and care for it. Well, how would this apply to a late term abortion, where the fetus can survive in a hospital, independent of the mother?

So I'm wondering how you would apply your conclusion that a fetus is different from a newborn to those specific 11,700 to 23,400 cases?


----------



## beckybird

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Turquesa*
> 
> Interesting piece! Thanks for posting, Becky Bird!


No, thank YOU for posting! You are one of my favorite members here on MDC, and I always enjoy reading your posts. I admire the way you think!


----------



## Smokering

Quote:


> The problem with the article is that their first tenet is demonstrably false: "The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent." In that the fetus is dependent upon a *specific* woman's body for continuing life and an infant is not dependent upon a *specific* woman's body for life they are fundamentally different.


There are certainly practical distinctions there, but how does this make them not "morally equivalent"? What does that even mean?

I found the thrust of this article horrific (from a pro-life and anti-infanticide POV), but I thought the authors actually made a few good points.

I have long been baffled by the pro-choice tendency to segregate reproductive "what I do with my body" from run-of-the-mill, everyday "what I do with my body". The strongest argument for legalised abortion is "You can't tell me what to do with my body" - but the government does tell you what to do with your body, all the time. Everything we do involves our bodies, because we're physical beings. If we are told to pay our taxes, we have to use our bodies to do it - either typing with our fingers on the keyboard, using our mouths to tell someone else to do it, walking to the post office, whatever - even just using our brains to make the calculations is a physical event. In that sense, the government is "enslaving" our bodies. Same with pretty much any law - the use of our bodies is restricted in how far we press our feet on the accelerator, whether or not we're allowed to use our hands to wield a gun, build a backyard fence more than so many centimetres high... everything.

These authors recognise that. They don't get precious about the distinction between carrying and raising a child, but recognise that both are bodily processes that involve a mother - and if a mother can legally kill her child because nurturing him in utero is causing her mental and/or physical distress (which she can), and if a newborn is fundamentally no different to a fetus (which he isn't), then surely it's logical that she be allowed to kill her child because nurturing him outside the womb is causing her mental and physical distress?

Now, the obvious answer to that is "But someone else could take care of him", but that question presupposes that newborns/fetuses have moral worth, ie that it's morally preferable to allow them to live; which the authors haven't granted in the article. At any rate, there are, at least theoretically, situations in which a woman couldn't hand the baby off to someone else. Say a woman was on a plane with her newborn baby and it crashed, and she and the baby ended up on a desert island - little food and water, and the mother would be more likely to survive if she conserved her resources by not breastfeeding and spending her time hunting for food rather than caring for the baby. In that situation, would her killing her baby be morally indistinguishable from abortion? The baby is just as dependent on her body as if it were still in the womb; it will die without her, and only her, physical care.

And yes, like a PP, I would be interested to pin these "ethicists" down on just when they feel killing one's offspring is impermissible. I suspect they're shying away from the issue because they know darn well that any number is going to be arbitrary and contentious. Six months (the Lacanian mirror stage of development)? The individual age at which caring for the child is no longer mentally or physically burdensome for the parent?

Carrying their logic further, because adoptive parents have the rights to authorise any medical procedures a biological parent would, could a couple adopt a special needs baby (or even a "normal", healthy baby, according to the terms of their argument, if they lived in an abortion-on-demand area) and then perform a "post-birth abortion"?

It's all quite fascinating, in a horrific sort of way.


----------



## beckybird

Good points, Smokering. So much to think about!


----------



## Turquesa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> No, thank YOU for posting! You are one of my favorite members here on MDC, and I always enjoy reading your posts. I admire the way you think!


----------



## TiredX2

The way we have handled discussion of abortion on MDC has been evolving. I don't remember the exact time-line and you have been here for a couple of the changes at least, but basically *at this point* limited discussion of abortion is allowed. If it ever appears to be veering into a personal territory or a more in-depth debate there may be additional moderation.

By "word choice" I am asking you to all be adults. Everyone knows that there are certain terms that tend to provoke the "other side" and I'm *asking* people to avoid using those terms. It does no good to needlessly irritate people you are trying to have a discussion with. Just think before you post and you should be fine.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Turquesa*
> 
> Well, perhaps you can clarify a couple of things. I once state my views on abortion without challenging someone else's, and a mod removed the post while accusing me of "debating abortion." It looks like people are sharing their views here, so to clarify....we get to share them, but no one is allowed to challenge them, right?
> 
> Also, would you mind clarifying what you mean by "word choice?" That criteria can be quite subjective depending on your own personal views.
> 
> Well, taking your numbers at face value for the sake of argument, that's still 300-600 annual babies/infants/fetuses/feta-babies&#8230;or whatever you want to call human offspring at this face of development. (See what I mean about word choice?)
> 
> If the numbers have been in that range since Roe v. Wade in 1973, that's 39 years worth of late-term abortions, or 11,700 to 23,400 total. Those *are* real casualties-not just abstractions to be dismissed as "red herrings"-and the majority were done on healthy mothers carrying healthy offspring. (Yes, that last link is RTL, but it's hard to argue with the citations).
> 
> So like Becky Bird, I'm not "picking" a debate, but I'm still curious to hear your answer to her question:
> 
> So I'm wondering how you would apply your conclusion that a fetus is different from a newborn to those specific 11,700 to 23,400 cases?


I have no desire to debate abortion rights. Child in the womb? Mother's right to choose. That is exactly the difference I have stated and it is still there in all 11,700-23,400 cases. Once there is legislation produced that allows induction with termination of parental rights at age of viability, then you can debate the morality or ethics of abortion past viability. As of *right now* it is the only choice for a woman who does not want to continue with a pregnancy.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
> 
> I have no desire to debate abortion rights. Child in the womb? Mother's right to choose. That is exactly the difference I have stated and it is still there in all 11,700-23,400 cases. Once there is legislation produced that allows induction with termination of parental rights at age of viability, then you can debate the morality or ethics of abortion past viability. As of *right now* it is the only choice for a woman who does not want to continue with a pregnancy.


Yeah, I tend to agree with this.

I'm also very much of the "if you don't want one don't get one" camp. It's a choice that people have, those rights should be prevented from being further degraded, and people who are opposed can exercise their right not to have an abortion. I'm pro-choice, but have no intention of ever having an abortion (I did get pregnant unintentionally at 23, and had a child out of wedlock while in law school - so I can sympathize when people are pregnant in less than ideal circumstances because its very hard). I realize that not everyone would make the same choice that I did, and am at peace with that.

I may not personally agree with someone's choice, but that doesn't give me the right to dictate what that persons choice should be.


----------



## Smokering

Quote:


> I'm also very much of the "if you don't want one don't get one" camp. It's a choice that people have


Those two statements annoy me intensely, as I see them all the time in the abortion debate and they completely miss the point. "If you don't like abortion, don't have one" (as it's usually stated) really, REALLY fails to engage with the pro-life position, which is (generally speaking) that abortion is murder. Saying that to a pro-lifer makes about as much sense as saying "Don't like genocide? Don't commit one" or "Don't like rape? Don't do it". It's asking us to stand by while innocent people (in our view, at least) are being killed, without any argument stating why that's a good/necessary/right thing to do. I'm guessing most of the people who make that statement wouldn't want us to stand tolerantly by and watch them get mugged, saying "Well, I don't agree with mugging, and I'd never do it myself, but it's his body and he has the right to use it as he wishes, so if he chooses to mug you I'm not going to judge him".

And "it's a choice that people have" is an utterly meaningless statement. Well, yes it is; so what? Beating my four-year-old with a red-hot poker is a choice I have; shooting up a K-Mart, doing cocaine while pregnant, putting ground glass in my husband's dinner or cheating on him are all choices I have. Everything's a choice. There may be negative consequences to those choices, but I can still exercise them as far as I am able. Or if the "choice" statement means that it's a legally sanctioned choice, well, duh, but isn't the morality of that choice the very question under discussion?

Quote:


> I may not personally agree with someone's choice, but that doesn't give me the right to dictate what that persons choice should be.


So you're an anarchist?


----------



## Super~Single~Mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> Those two statements annoy me intensely, as I see them all the time in the abortion debate and they completely miss the point. "If you don't like abortion, don't have one" (as it's usually stated) really, REALLY fails to engage with the pro-life position, which is (generally speaking) that abortion is murder. Saying that to a pro-lifer makes about as much sense as saying "Don't like genocide? Don't commit one" or "Don't like rape? Don't do it". It's asking us to stand by while innocent people (in our view, at least) are being killed, without any argument stating why that's a good/necessary/right thing to do. I'm guessing most of the people who make that statement wouldn't want us to stand tolerantly by and watch them get mugged, saying "Well, I don't agree with mugging, and I'd never do it myself, but it's his body and he has the right to use it as he wishes, so if he chooses to mug you I'm not going to judge him".
> 
> And "it's a choice that people have" is an utterly meaningless statement. Well, yes it is; so what? Beating my four-year-old with a red-hot poker is a choice I have; shooting up a K-Mart, doing cocaine while pregnant, putting ground glass in my husband's dinner or cheating on him are all choices I have. Everything's a choice. There may be negative consequences to those choices, but I can still exercise them as far as I am able. Or if the "choice" statement means that it's a legally sanctioned choice, well, duh, but isn't the morality of that choice the very question under discussion?


http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

The above is my response to you. Most of your post is far too personal for any other response - I feel it verges on a personal attack, and is inflammatory in a way that any response would violate the UA.


----------



## Smokering

Please explain how your link is at all relevant to my argument? I've seen that page before, and it doesn't address either of my points; all it does is point out the hypocrisy of some "pro-life" (although obviously not) individuals, which isn't really the issue at hand.

As for the rest of my post, I disagree that it's inflammatory (certainly no more so than your original statements, to which I was responding) and it certainly wasn't intended as a personal attack; but if you feel it warrants reporting, report it. Otherwise, feel free to point out any errors of reasoning in my argument, or respond rationally to it.


----------



## Imakcerka

This is getting touchy. And I doubt it will be allowed much longer.

I'm pro choice. Or so I was told. I use Birth control. I believe in the use of the morning after pill and I feel strongly that any woman who does not want to carry to term for any mirade of reasons should not have to. I don't think I would ever abort, but I can choose to if I feel it's necessary for me.

I have a strong fear of forcing people into having children through guilt and coersion. Should they have gotten pregnant? Eh, probably not. But it happens and then what? There are too many factors involved to nit pic over peoples rights and reasons. And there are far too many people weighing in on the uterus.

For those who believe it's morally wrong, I get it, I understand where you're coming from.

As far as the article is concerned. It's yucky to me. Very yucky.


----------



## philomom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imakcerka*
> 
> This is getting touchy. And I doubt it will be allowed much longer.
> 
> I'm pro choice. Or so I was told. I use Birth control. I believe in the use of the morning after pill and I feel strongly that any woman who does not want to carry to term for any mirade of reasons should not have to. I don't think I would ever abort, but I can choose to if I feel it's necessary for me.
> 
> I have a strong fear of forcing people into having children through guilt and coersion. Should they have gotten pregnant? Eh, probably not. But it happens and then what? There are too many factors involved to nit pic over peoples rights and reasons. And there are far too many people weighing in on the uterus.
> 
> For those who believe it's morally wrong, I get it, I understand where you're coming from.
> 
> As far as the article is concerned. It's yucky to me. Very yucky.


I agree with much of this post. Ever read The Handmaid's Tale? Forced childbearing is my worst nightmare for myself and my female descendants.


----------



## Smokering

Quote:


> I have a strong fear of forcing people into having children through guilt and coersion.


I agree. But once someone is pregnant, she has a child, by definition; whether or not she should be permitted to kill that child is a different issue. Unless pro-lifers are actually impregnating women against their will, they aren't "forcing" them into having children. They are trying to prevent them killing the defenseless children they already have.


----------



## Imakcerka

I understand why you think that. I really do. I don't fault you for believing that. Having and raising children is an enormous responsibility. Some people take it too lightly. As someone who was taught abstinence only I'm thankful for the friend I had who told me everything my mother didn't tell me. I didn't know things I should have known. I could have very well gotten pregnant had I not thought I would burn in hell forever if I had sex before marriage.

While we worry about what is going in utero... the children born, abused, assaulted, missing, lost and murdered by adults are mostly ignored. We keep saying have the baby. We then forget about them while they wander this crappy place treated like shyte by the very adults who should not have had them.. I think most of us already know that while they are a gift they are placed in some of the most horrific situations. I prefer to put my heart and mind into the children who are here and who have gone through hell and back.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> I agree. But once someone is pregnant, she has a child, by definition; whether or not she should be permitted to kill that child is a different issue. Unless pro-lifers are actually impregnating women against their will, they aren't "forcing" them into having children. They are trying to prevent them killing the defenseless children they already have.


----------



## Smokering

Quote:


> While we worry about what is going in utero... the children born, abused, assaulted, missing, lost and murdered by adults are mostly ignored. We keep saying have the baby. We then forget about them while they wander this crappy place treated like shyte by the very adults who should not have had them..


Do "we"? I don't know any pro-lifers (and I know a lot - Christian circles) who ignore the fact that children who are born experience hardship and suffering.

There are certainly pro-lifers who focus on the pro-life cause to the exclusion of other charities, and I don't see that that's necessarily a bad thing - if you donate or do activism work to end slavery in Asia, that doesn't mean you're OK with slavery in India, it just means you have a specific passion and/or only so much time, money or mental energy. Some pro-lifers probably think that soon-to-be-aborted children are in direr straits, needing more urgent help, than kids who are at least alive and capable of semi-independent existence. There's a certain logic to that.

But most pro-lifers I know get just as het up about the suffering of already-born children, and many pro-lifers - Protestants, Catholics, people with no religion, all sorts - have fostered and adopted special needs children, set up charities to get food, clothing and Christmas presents to needy kids, campaigned for tougher penalties for child abusers, put up flyers for missing children, let neighbor kids come over to play to avoid their drunken parents, called the police on domestic violence....

I don't think it has to be an either/or, and honestly I don't think it usually is. Approximately 50% of people in the USA are pro-life (I think I read 47% as a recent figure) - I highly doubt all the child-related charities are comprised of the other 53% because the pro-lifers only care about fetuses.


----------



## Imakcerka

You're not going to get an argument out of me. I'm sorry. I see that you're very passionate about your beliefs. That's absolutely awesome. The "We" is everyone included. So much concern about what is happening in the uterus on both sides. If they put that much effort into what is happening outside of the Uterus it would be amazing. And no I do not think they do enough. I don't care how many numbers there are to say they are trying. They still suck at it.

*Some pro-lifers probably think that soon-to-be-aborted children are in direr straits, needing more urgent help, than kids who are at least alive and capable of semi-independent existence. There's a certain logic to that.*

I don't understand this logic at all. As you said it's some I doubt it's all.


----------



## Smokering

Quote:


> I don't understand this logic at all.


...Because once you're dead, you're dead? Even a starved, abused, miserable child has a chance, however slight, of his/her situation changing for the better - someone might notice, a school program might provide food, the abusive parent might get arrested, the kid might make a friend, discover a talent, find a compassionate neighbor. Someone who's about to be killed is about to have all his/her options rather abruptly and finally taken away. It's like walking down the street in Ethiopia and seeing starving children begging by the street - if you're about to stop and pull out a coin, but see another kid about to be run over by a bus, you don't stand there thinking "Well, these kids all have it pretty bad, slow starvation is really a lot worse than a quick death" - you save the kid from the bus. (OK, not my most elegant analogy ever - I haven't had much sleep for a week.)

Again, among the pro-lifers I know, most are equally passionate about children in danger inside the womb and out. I'm just pointing out that it's not necessarily hypocritical for some pro-lifers to be more actively involved in helping the unborn than the born; any more than the reverse. (I have a sister who's pro-life, but as far as I know she doesn't participate in any kind of pro-life activism; but she does do a lot of work with the homeless. It would certainly be odd to say "You only care about people once they're born, you hypocrite!" to her, so I don't see why the reverse isn't true.)


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum

We are running pretty far afield here, and have entered into the debating abortion territory. While this rule may seem arbitrary to you, the fact is that we have tried (more times than I can count) to host this discussion and truthfully, no one's mind gets changed, and it devolves into an argument. So, let's at least head back into the topic posited by the OP and out of the "it's okay/it's wrong" territory.


----------



## Imakcerka

PartyPOOOOOPER!

I'm not debating. I'm rationalizing. HA!


----------



## Super~Single~Mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> Again, among the pro-lifers I know, most are equally passionate about children in danger inside the womb and out. I'm just pointing out that it's not necessarily hypocritical for some pro-lifers to be more actively involved in helping the unborn than the born; any more than the reverse. (I have a sister who's pro-life, but as far as I know she doesn't participate in any kind of pro-life activism; but she does do a lot of work with the homeless. It would certainly be odd to say "You only care about people once they're born, you hypocrite!" to her, so I don't see why the reverse isn't true.)


Clearly you and I know a VERY different set of pro-lifers. The ones I know are filthy effing rich, and would just seek treatment elsewhere. They don't give a rats ass about poor children (clearly poor children have lazy parents, who just need to get a job), and they don't want to adopt, and they don't want to foster, and they don't want to pay taxes so that everyone can have healthcare.

The problem with illegalizing abortion is the "slippery slope". Once late term abortion is made illegal, people push for early term abortion to be made illegal, and then there are exceptions for the life and health of the mother, and cases involving rape or incest. Then politicians want to take those exceptions away too.

As you probably know, miscarriage is more common than live birth (without taking abortion into consideration). Alabama has amended criminal statutes so that women can be held criminally responsible for the outcome of their pregnancy. How on EARTH does that further ANY public policy? If people are "pro-life" they should be donating to study the causes of miscarriage and to stop miscarriage - so that women who desperately want children can have them without suffering loss.

As for the article, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the movement. When someone "needs" an abortion their circumstances are somehow different from anyone elses, and they, as "pro-lifers" are more entitled - to privacy, to special treatment, etc. It also proves that those who have the means will still seek abortions. Rich people will go to foreign countries for medical tourism to get the services they "need".

People without the means to seek safe abortions in a foreign country, will seek back alley illegal procedures that put the mothers life in danger. Most women who seek an abortion already have children. Should those children grow up without a mother because of someone's moral objection to abortion? Sure, they think of abortion as murder, but murder is illegal and people still do it, and abortion is legal because if it wasn't women would be dying from illegal abortions that aren't safe (which is one of the reasons it was legalized in the first place).

My main and biggest problem with the pro-life movement is the hypocrisy. Rick Santorum (







) is running for president and doesn't believe that abortion should be legal ever under any circumstances (even to save the life of the mother, one who may already have children that need her). And yet, when his wife was dying because of an infection from a living fetus, he chose abortion. His choice was "moral" because he couldn't live without his wife. But other men and children are supposed to live without their wives, mothers, daughters, sisters because he doesn't think they should have the right to an abortion when the pregnancy is killing the mother? According to your views he murdered his baby!!!! MURDER!!! OMG HE COMMIT MURDER. But he's running for president on a pro-life platform. Preaching that which he does not practice.

I am pro-choice not because I believe that abortion is "moral", not because I think it is "right" - but because abortion is a medical decision that is between a woman and her doctor. I believe in women choosing to parent. I don't believe in forcing women to parent. I don't believe in criminalizing drug use during pregnancy because I want women to seek medical treatment (not entirely related but part of the same slippery slope).

You are free to disagree with me. You are free to be pro-life - but until the pro-life movement actually lives a pro-life lifestyle, I'm probably not going to listen to them.


----------



## laohaire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> You are free to be pro-life - but until the pro-life movement actually lives a pro-life lifestyle, I'm probably not going to listen to them.


It's really interesting, I think I see a pattern here. People (not just you) are seeing the personality of a movement based on its most notorious or vocal members.

What if your typical pro-lifer were more like the woman who volunteers for the homeless? And not rich people who think they can dictate what everybody else does and do whatever they want. And who think Rick Santorum is a major hypocrite too?

I wonder if we could align more. I think we could stop talking about the typical points (which seem to speak to the side who says the points but do not at all resonate with the other side).

What if we could all focus on the bottom line, which is as you said, that it's a slippery slope. And that there are some circumstances that most of us would agree that abortion should be allowed. And that it's not "nothing" and shouldn't be abused.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *laohaire*
> 
> What if we could all focus on the bottom line, which is as you said, that it's a slippery slope. And that there are some circumstances that most of us would agree that abortion should be allowed. And that it's not "nothing" and shouldn't be abused.


The problem is, there won't be legislation that everyone can agree on. It quickly becomes an all or nothing issue.

And its not limited to abortion. There is an attack on women's access to birth control going on right now, and any woman who speaks up about it is labeled a slut who can't keep her pants on (ummm men can't keep em on either - I really hate that double standard). The Supreme Court is hearing next week oral arguments about health care reform - depending on what they decide (we should know sometime before 2013) women's health care could be in jeopardy.

It's fine to be pro-life, but then there need to be in place social programs that actually help under privileged women get the healthcare they need (no, not everyone can UC safely, sometimes people do need to be under the care of a midwife or obgyn), that help those children get healthcare, and then help those women actually afford to raise those children - especially if you aren't going to allow affordable access to birth control to sexually active women. And don't tell me that we shouldn't have sex if we don't want babies - married women have sex. Single women have sex. Married men have sex. Single men have sex. Until men are willing to go without sex, women shouldn't be required to go without sex either. The double standard is nauseating. And pro-lifers need to be willing to pay for those programs - the conservatives are the more "pro-life" party, and yet all they want are tax cuts for the rich, and higher tax burdens for the poor. How does that help children born to poor families?


----------



## Super~Single~Mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *laohaire*
> 
> What if your typical pro-lifer were more like the woman who volunteers for the homeless? And not rich people who think they can dictate what everybody else does and do whatever they want. And who think Rick Santorum is a major hypocrite too?


I volunteer too. Volunteering doesn't make someone able to dictate mine, or anyone elses, reproductive choices. Nor does it make them any more "morally" sound.


----------



## laohaire

I'm responding to the part where you described who you think pro-lifers are - rich hypocrites, basically. And you said that until pro-lifers are NOT rich hypocrites, you will not be engaging in any meaningful discussion with them.

So I'm pointing out that maybe who you think pro-lifers are is actually just a subset of them. Would you talk about the issue with pro-lifers who care about babies after they are born, who care about women, who are not hypocrites, who are not steeped in privilege, who think similar thoughts as you about Rick Santorum?


----------



## Super~Single~Mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *laohaire*
> 
> So I'm pointing out that maybe who you think pro-lifers are is actually just a subset of them. Would you talk about the issue with pro-lifers who care about babies after they are born, who care about women, who are not hypocrites, who are not steeped in privilege, who think similar thoughts as you about Rick Santorum?


If they supported implementing meaningful social programs to deal with the consequences of making abortion illegal, sure. But so far, all I've seen from the pro-life camp is that if you don't want babies don't get preggo.


----------



## fruitfulmomma

ssm...google the morning center if you want to see what kind of programs are being implemented for women and their babies


----------



## Super~Single~Mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fruitfulmomma*
> 
> ssm...google the morning center if you want to see what kind of programs are being implemented for women and their babies


Thats great. Wheres the massive scale thats needed to combat the horrible poverty that is faced by women all over the country? One clinic is great - but its not going to solve the problem. There needs to be universal health care, it needs to be widely available and easily accessible to everyone.

Also, I generally do not like programs thats home page states: "lavish the love of Jesus Christ on women and unborn children who desperately need it"

Not all women who get pregnant are religious, and the last thing they need is for religious BS shoved down their throats.

AND - its not just maternity care that women need, its childcare, reliable daycare so that they can work to feed that extra mouth. Afordable, GOOD daycare (in my city, which has more than its fair share of poverty, it costs me $1,400/month to have my ds in a good quality child care).

The amount of social services needed is not enough - just maternity care isn't going to cut it. Our country is not willing to provide services to people on a large scale. The services that are available are mostly inadequate.


----------



## laohaire

Well, maybe someday a meaningful discussion will be possible.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *laohaire*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe someday a meaningful discussion will be possible.


And maybe someday the pro-life movement will realize its about more than just abortion.


----------



## laohaire

Sigh. I am trying to engage in a meaningful, thoughtful discussion but you are not willing to come to the table.

I agree it's about more than abortion.

But you do not want to discuss it. You have decided what everybody thinks. And I think that's a huge shame, especially since it's not just you.

Personally, I am willing to listen and will probably agree with you on 99% of what you say but I can't discuss without anybody else's participation. I'm just talking to myself.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *laohaire*
> 
> Sigh. I am trying to engage in a meaningful, thoughtful discussion but you are not willing to come to the table.
> 
> I agree it's about more than abortion.
> 
> But you do not want to discuss it. You have decided what everybody thinks. And I think that's a huge shame, especially since it's not just you.
> 
> Personally, I am willing to listen and will probably agree with you on 99% of what you say but I can't discuss without anybody else's participation. I'm just talking to myself.


I haven't seen that. What have you contributed other than to tell me that pro-lifers think Santorum is just as loony as I think he is? I responded to someones post about the morningside christian group that wants to give free maternity care to people - but that doesn't solve the problem.

If you agree that its about more than just abortion, then tell me more than that. I haven't decided what everyone thinks - I just know that I am staunchly pro-choice because I believe that women should CHOOSE parenthood. I think it should be a choice. And until there are huge steps taken to support women in parenting, abortion needs to be a choice. It needs to be. There are religious fanatics trying right this very second to make D&C procedures illegal to remove dead fetuses from a woman's body. That is the pro-life movement that is happening right now. Whether most pro-lifers think that way is a different thing entirely, but the people who are actually in power and have political power to make changes are making the wrong ones. And I don't see the pro-life movement trying to stop them.


----------



## Imakcerka

I'll discuss with you. I'm not out to finger point or name call and I think we're on the opposite sides of the spectrum on this

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *laohaire*
> 
> Sigh. I am trying to engage in a meaningful, thoughtful discussion but you are not willing to come to the table.
> 
> I agree it's about more than abortion.
> 
> But you do not want to discuss it. You have decided what everybody thinks. And I think that's a huge shame, especially since it's not just you.
> 
> Personally, I am willing to listen and will probably agree with you on 99% of what you say but I can't discuss without anybody else's participation. I'm just talking to myself.


I can completely understand why both sides get emotional and throw out irrational thought.

I don't care which politician is a hypocrite ( I think they all are). I do care about what is happening with women's health. The recent language that has been coming out from some of the more conservative states have me a little worried... OK a lot worried. I'm trying to wade through it all but it seems that the uterus is a battle zone. Where the life of the fetus/baby whatever people feel it should be called outweighs the life of the person who is carrying fetus/baby. When so many different stipulations are put into place it becomes a pile of paperwork and finger pointing. The Moral compass of another should not weigh down the mother.

I would like to point out that I do not side with anyone on this issue in full force. I can not say that conservatives are hypocrites trying to bring down the women anymore than I can say the liberals are baby killers. I don't agree with either. I see the moral dilemma of one group over another. I get that. However what needs to be done is not that simple. A woman should have every right to her body. Her moral compass should not be swayed by any group. The reasons for her unwanted pregnancy can be all over the spectrum, lack of education ( whose fault is that?), no access to good health care (fault?), poor family structure (fault?), a medical issue, or simply a poor choice that she cannot see through. While every potential life could have a blessed outcome, many do not. My biggest issue is over the ones who do not. That really is for another conversation.

Women's health is under attack again and it's hidden in abortion laws. In those laws they add little tidbits that make life harder and choices more difficult. And the loudest proponents of attacking women's health... Are men.


----------



## Smokering

OK, trying to keep on topic here....

Quote:


> A woman should have every right to her body. Her moral compass should not be swayed by any group.


How then do you respond to the argument I made in my original post? To recap

"A woman should have every right to her body" - I assume you mean "every right to do what she wants with her body"? But abortion and infanticide obviously involve someone else's body as well - the baby's - so that should really be phrased as "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else" (or at least, sign the consent form allowing someone else to do the killing).

If you believe that wholesale, then you eventually descend into complete anarchy - if we can all do whatever we want with our bodies, even if harms others, then rape and murder and theft and genocide are all OK. I'm going to assume you don't believe that.  So presumably you mean "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else, under specific circumstances". Right?

So what are those circumstances, and how do the circumstances of abortion (which you think should be legal) and infanticide (which you find "disturbing", although I don't believe you commented on whether you felt it should be legal or not) differ? A PP mentioned that a baby in the womb can only be looked after by one specific mother, whereas a baby outside the womb could be looked after by others; but that distinction would seem to assign moral worth to babies solely on the basis of convenience. If it were impossible for a mother to hand over her baby for fostering/adoption; if she were the only person available to care for it; would not infanticide be permissible, under that paradigm? If her "moral compass" were OK with it, and she wanted to use her body as she pleased (ie not feeding and caring for a helpless baby - or I suppose, by extension, an invalid or otherwise helpless person)... would you believe we didn't have the right to force her to do it, and that therefore she could order the death of the baby, or even perform it herself if she wanted to use her body that way?

In other words: you seem to be pro-choice but anti-infanticide, but what's your reasoning that finds a moral distinction between the two?


----------



## Imakcerka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> OK, trying to keep on topic here....
> 
> How then do you respond to the argument I made in my original post? To recap
> 
> "A woman should have every right to her body" - I assume you mean "every right to do what she wants with her body"? But abortion and infanticide obviously involve someone else's body as well - the baby's - so that should really be phrased as "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else" (or at least, sign the consent form allowing someone else to do the killing).
> 
> We view this so differently. I'm very grey where you're in black and white.
> 
> If you believe that wholesale, then you eventually descend into complete anarchy - if we can all do whatever we want with our bodies, even if harms others, then rape and murder and theft and genocide are all OK. I'm going to assume you don't believe that.  So presumably you mean "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else, under specific circumstances". Right?
> 
> If you would prefer those specific words then sure. Those are your words. Again, I don't see it as a women gleefully skipping to the clinic and opting for a hanger over a suctioning device. There are many reasons a woman could want or need to end the possiblity of the fetus/baby.
> 
> So what are those circumstances, and how do the circumstances of abortion (which you think should be legal) and infanticide (which you find "disturbing", although I don't believe you commented on whether you felt it should be legal or not) differ? A PP mentioned that a baby in the womb can only be looked after by one specific mother, whereas a baby outside the womb could be looked after by others; but that distinction would seem to assign moral worth to babies solely on the basis of convenience. If it were impossible for a mother to hand over her baby for fostering/adoption; if she were the only person available to care for it; would not infanticide be permissible, under that paradigm? If her "moral compass" were OK with it, and she wanted to use her body as she pleased (ie not feeding and caring for a helpless baby - or I suppose, by extension, an invalid or otherwise helpless person)... would you believe we didn't have the right to force her to do it, and that therefore she could order the death of the baby, or even perform it herself if she wanted to use her body that way?
> 
> Black and white still. We both see this so differently and maybe it not worth discussing at all. I in no way feel I should try to change your mind on how you feel. Mostly because you live in another country and your votes do not touch my uterus.
> 
> This issue is so much more complex then calling a women a murderer. It really is.
> 
> In other words: you seem to be pro-choice but anti-infanticide, but what's your reasoning that finds a moral distinction between the two?
> 
> Heres the kicker, I don't believe in the death penalty either.


So if you don't mind and you insist on black and white thinking which is completely your right.

Would you tell a mother who has found out her child is dead in utero she should be forced to carry it til it comes out on it's own? Theres a politician here that feels that way.

Should a mother who is waiting on a miscarriage not be allowed a D&C... because it's deemed abortive?

Should the morning after pill not be supplied to women? For any reason at all?

Should birth control be kept from women altogether?

Should a mother carrying a baby who will not live outside the womb for any mirade of reasons (obviously genetics) be forced to carry her baby those extra few months even though it's futile?

These are the issues we're facing right now. It's not should abortion be legal or illegal. It's should women have any choices at all? Some of them ridiculous and some of them refering to us as cattle.

Maybe I didn't answer the questions you asked to the fullest. I honestly tried.


----------



## rachelsmama

Since infanticide is not unique to humans, but is practiced by many other mammals when there is too much stress, I wonder how much of the moral outrage over infanticide and abortion comes from a desire to set humans apart from other animals and prove we are better than them.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama

The problem, and crux of this issue, is the definition of the word Baby. I don't think of a fetus as a baby. It's a fetus, dependent on the woman carrying it. A baby is born, but I don't think of a fetus as a baby until they are born.


----------



## fruitfulmomma

Male animals quite often fight and kill each other over females, so... ???


----------



## Smokering

lmakcerka: Why are you unwilling to actually engage with my arguments? I asked you several questions and you've skirted nearly all of them; I'm not sure why, but I can't conduct a discussion without actual engagement; I'm not going to keep sending arguments off into the void. I'll answer your questions when you answer mine,


----------



## Super~Single~Mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> OK, trying to keep on topic here....
> 
> How then do you respond to the argument I made in my original post? To recap
> 
> "A woman should have every right to her body" - I assume you mean "every right to do what she wants with her body"? But abortion and infanticide obviously involve someone else's body as well - the baby's - so that should really be phrased as "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else" (or at least, sign the consent form allowing someone else to do the killing).
> 
> If you believe that wholesale, then you eventually descend into complete anarchy - if we can all do whatever we want with our bodies, even if harms others, then rape and murder and theft and genocide are all OK. I'm going to assume you don't believe that.  So presumably you mean "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else, under specific circumstances". Right?
> 
> A woman should be able to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. It used to be illegal - one reason it was legalized (in the US, I have no idea what the laws of your country are though since I haven't looked it up) is that women were dying of back alley abortions. It became a public health issue as the infections they were getting from illegal procedures was killing them. Allowing women to get abortions does not take us into complete anarchy allowing people to run around committing mass murders and gang rapes. It's a specific procedure that is made by a pregnant woman because she does not want to continue the pregnancy. The reasons for that are infinite, and depend on a persons personal circumstances. I don't know all the reasons, I don't need to - I believe in a woman's autonomy over her own body, and I believe that a woman's life (a woman who may be married with kids, a single mother who cannot afford another child, a woman who is living in poverty, a woman who is in an abusive relationship and fears telling her husband/boyfriend/partner, etc etc etc) should take precedence over that of a fetus. Allowing abortions - which can only be performed on consenting women by doctors when the woman is pregnant - does not equate to allowing murder en mass, nor does it equate to allowing people to do whatever they want whenever they want to the detriment of society.
> 
> So what are those circumstances, and how do the circumstances of abortion (which you think should be legal) and infanticide (which you find "disturbing", although I don't believe you commented on whether you felt it should be legal or not) differ?
> 
> The difference between a fetus and a baby is that a baby has been born and is living independent of the mother. A fetus is not living independent, and is inside the mother. That is the difference. I do not believe in infanticide - I think that infanticide and abortion are completely different.
> 
> A PP mentioned that a baby in the womb can only be looked after by one specific mother, whereas a baby outside the womb could be looked after by others; but that distinction would seem to assign moral worth to babies solely on the basis of convenience. If it were impossible for a mother to hand over her baby for fostering/adoption; if she were the only person available to care for it; would not infanticide be permissible, under that paradigm?
> 
> Using unrealistic scenarios to make your point won't help you either. If a baby (who has been born) is crying and crying and crying and there isn't anyone for 1,000 miles to help you - put the baby down and walk away for 20 minutes or a half hour. Seriously. The baby will live. I'm not a fan of CIO, but a mother who has no help and needs a half hour to chill, won't kill her baby and also won't harm them for life. When you are parenting a baby who has been born, you can get some time away in almost all situations to relax and calm down. Killing the baby isn't necessary. When you are a cocaine addict and you are pregnant, and not able to clean up enough to have a healthy baby, who am I to tell you that you have to carry that fetus to term? It's becoming harder and harder to get treatment for addictions when you are pregnant (at least here int he US) because it is being criminalized to take illegal drugs when pregnant. This deters women from seeking medical care and help detoxing - which adds more public health issues and makes it harder for women to have a health pregnancy.
> 
> If her "moral compass" were OK with it, and she wanted to use her body as she pleased (ie not feeding and caring for a helpless baby - or I suppose, by extension, an invalid or otherwise helpless person)... would you believe we didn't have the right to force her to do it, and that therefore she could order the death of the baby, or even perform it herself if she wanted to use her body that way?
> 
> Well, in all honesty, we cannot force people to care for babies or invalids. That's why CPS exists in our world, and why people call them when they notice a baby failing to thrive. Or when they see a child being beaten, or otherwise think a family is at risk. We don't have the right to force a mother to feed her children, but we do have the ability to remove those children from her care if need be (well, I don't, but CPS and the courts do have that ability)
> 
> In other words: you seem to be pro-choice but anti-infanticide, but what's your reasoning that finds a moral distinction between the two?


Also, I have a big problem with the slippery slope of making abortions illegal. Will women be questioned when they have a miscarriage? What if a fetus dies in the 2nd or 3rd trimester? Will they be investigated for murder? I've been fortunate and never suffered a pregnancy loss - but I can only imagine how devastating it would be. To add being investigated for murder on top of that is just too much.

Will D&C's be disallowed for missed miscarriages? They are frequently used for that.

I also wonder how much of your reasoning is based on religious beliefs. I don't know about your home country, but my country was founded on the basis of religious freedom and separation of church and state. It's written into our Declaration of Independence, and our government is not allowed to act based on religious teachings, leanings or beliefs. Crazy lunatic man Rick Santorum (who would never get elected) has outright stated that he disagrees with separation of church and state - which is a big problem because our nation was founded with that as a major principle.


----------



## JollyGG

I do see this argument as simply a variation/continuation of the abortion debate. The primary debate about abortion is simply "when does a fetus/child become a person" or "when does a fetus/child reach a developmental stage to have value".

I'm pro-life. I honestly do not believe that life begins at conception. I do, however, believe that life does begin at some point before birth. I do not know when that point is in the pregnancy. I suspect it is fairly early. I would say that life begins when neurons start firing but I don't know when that happens. Since I cannot know I choose to consider a fetus as alive from conception onward to avoid the chance of terminating the life of a separate and conscious individual.

Right now my belief system is not the most prevalent belief in our country and our laws reflect this by making abortion legal. The belief that life does begin before birth is also a very common belief. The authors of the article quoted have yet another belief as to when life starts. Happily this is not a popular opinion about when life happens.

No matter what milestones you choose to use to quantify when life begins there is going to be differences of opinion. Take my opinion that life begins with neural development. While I would argue that the ability to think makes a person and gives that person value and makes that person someone who should have the legal right to life, I could see another making the argument that life doesn't begin until the brain is mature at over the age of 21 and therefore they don't have the right to protection of life.

While most of us wouldn't agree that a person should be allowed to be killed legally up until age 21 due to their incomplete brain development we do use that brain development to deny them rights even past the age of legal adulthood. Isn't the fact that brains are still developing in young adults one of the primary reasons that the drinking age in our country is 21 despite legal adulthood beginning at 18 in most states? Even this decision is one that many individual have different opinions on.

So really the decisions about when life begins are somewhat arbitrary and there are always going to lots of opinions about how to quantify life and it's value and what rights that person should or should not have.


----------



## Imakcerka

It's not that I'm not answering your questions. You're to quick to be negative toward the person on the other end. I do not debate but would rather discuss. When you make inflammatory statements such as

If you believe that wholesale, then you eventually descend into complete anarchy - if we can all do whatever we want with our bodies, even if harms others, then rape and murder and theft and genocide are all OK. I'm going to assume you don't believe that.  So presumably you mean "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else, under specific circumstances". Right?

You lose me.

In no way have I said, "You want women to suffer, you want all babies to live no matter the consequence or death of the mother". Look I would love to discuss this with you but you are seriously black and white and you want an argument. You won't get one from me. For one I really like you, also I don't argue things such as this but rather try to understand them. To me there are so many variables. I understand your thinking, I once thought that way. I have changed my mind through experience and life. My own losses and my own fears. With my current medical situation getting pregnant might mean I would have to choose a life. I would choose mine. I have two living daughters and three dead ones. I'm going to say the living ones need me more.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> lmakcerka: Why are you unwilling to actually engage with my arguments? I asked you several questions and you've skirted nearly all of them; I'm not sure why, but I can't conduct a discussion without actual engagement; I'm not going to keep sending arguments off into the void. I'll answer your questions when you answer mine,


----------



## Smokering

Super-Single-Mama: I've replied to some of your post already via PM. I'll repeat it here for the sake of completeness, but after that I'd rather our discussion was kept to one place or the other: seems silly to repeat arguments.

Quote:


> Allowing women to get abortions does not take us into complete anarchy allowing people to run around committing mass murders and gang rapes.


I didn't say it did; I said that the statement "a woman should be able to do what she wants with her own body" need to be better phrased, because as it stands, it would allow for mass murder and gang rape. If what you believe is simply "a woman should have the right to kill her fetus", then say that; don't make noble-sounding catch-phrases that don't hold up to scrutiny. NOBODY believes "a woman should be able to do what she wants with her own body" as a standalone principle. It sounds good, but it makes no sense.

Quote:


> The difference between a fetus and a baby is that a baby has been born and is living independent of the mother. A fetus is not living independent, and is inside the mother. That is the difference. I do not believe in infanticide - I think that infanticide and abortion are completely different.


A baby is only capable of living independently of its mother if a mother-substitute is available. If not, she is forced to use her body (surrendering her bodily autonomy) in order to prevent it dying, just as with pregnancy (and in many cases, with far more mental and physical toll - some women sail through pregnancy and birth, but find breastfeeding, night wakings etc absolutely hellish).

Quote:


> sing unrealistic scenarios to make your point won't help you either. If a baby (who has been born) is crying and crying and crying and there isn't anyone for 1,000 miles to help you - put the baby down and walk away for 20 minutes or a half hour. Seriously. The baby will live. I'm not a fan of CIO, but a mother who has no help and needs a half hour to chill, won't kill her baby and also won't harm them for life. When you are parenting a baby who has been born, you can get some time away in almost all situations to relax and calm down. Killing the baby isn't necessary. When you are a cocaine addict and you are pregnant, and not able to clean up enough to have a healthy baby, who am I to tell you that you have to carry that fetus to term? It's becoming harder and harder to get treatment for addictions when you are pregnant (at least here int he US) because it is being criminalized to take illegal drugs when pregnant. This deters women from seeking medical care and help detoxing - which adds more public health issues and makes it harder for women to have a health pregnancy.


20 minutes or half an hour... after which she has to again surrender her bodily autonomy to return to care for the infant, or it WILL DIE. It's true that in most situations, parents of newborns can theoretically get support or give the baby up for adoption (although how many of those parents realistically, actually have and are aware of access for those services is another question): but doesn't that reduce the baby's right to life to convenience? A baby can live only insofar as its mother doesn't have to surrender her bodily autonomy to care for it? What if she doesn't want to use her own, autonomous body to pick up the phone and dial an adoption agency? How absolute is her bodily autonomy?

Quote:


> Well, in all honesty, we cannot force people to care for babies or invalids. That's why CPS exists in our world, and why people call them when they notice a baby failing to thrive. Or when they see a child being beaten, or otherwise think a family is at risk. *We don't have the right to force a mother to feed her children*, but we do have the ability to remove those children from her care if need be (well, I don't, but CPS and the courts do have that ability)


So you don't think parents who neglect or starve their children should be punished, on the grounds that feeding/clothing them or treating their illnesses would have interfered with their [the parents'] bodily autonomy? Really? What about forcing dads to pay child support? That interferes with how they use their bodies. What I'm looking for here is a qualitative distinction between "using your body" in a reproductive sense, and "using your body" in any other sense. No-one has yet given me one.

Quote:


> Also, I have a big problem with the slippery slope of making abortions illegal. Will women be questioned when they have a miscarriage? What if a fetus dies in the 2nd or 3rd trimester? Will they be investigated for murder? I've been fortunate and never suffered a pregnancy loss - but I can only imagine how devastating it would be. To add being investigated for murder on top of that is just too much.


Not necessarily. Murder's illegal, and most deaths don't come with a criminal investigation, unless there is reason to believe there was foul play.

Quote:


> Will D&C's be disallowed for missed miscarriages? They are frequently used for that.


I don't see why they shouldn't be, as that's not a pro-life issue. I can't answer for what laws your crazy American system will come up with, but it is irrelevant to the theory and philosophy of the pro-life movement.

Quote:


> I also wonder how much of your reasoning is based on religious beliefs. I don't know about your home country, but my country was founded on the basis of religious freedom and separation of church and state. It's written into our Declaration of Independence, and our government is not allowed to act based on religious teachings, leanings or beliefs. Crazy lunatic man Rick Santorum (who would never get elected) has outright stated that he disagrees with separation of church and state - which is a big problem because our nation was founded with that as a major principle.


[Copying and pasting]

1. NZ has freedom of religion and separation of church and state. That means religious people have the freedom to vote against laws they think are immoral. Separation of church and state does NOT mean, in NZ, the US or anywhere else, that religious people must put their beliefs aside and pretend they are secular humanists/atheists/whatever when they vote.

2. My beliefs that rape, murder and theft are wrong are also founded on my religious beliefs - should I not vote to oppose those things? Be consistent. If you don't like religious people voting according to their beliefs only when you disagree with those beliefs, it's dishonest to pretend this is about separation of church and state.

3. Secular beliefs are no more inherently worthy of being enshrined in law than religious ones. You believe a fetus has no rights - whether you believe that because you believe God told you, your spirit grandmother told you or your ex-boyfriend or philosophy professor told you is irrelevant. Your beliefs are not more provable or epistemically superior simply because they are not religious. Why should unborn babies have to pay the price for your personal beliefs?

Quote:


> When you make inflammatory statements [snip] You lose me.


How is it inflammatory? I'm asking you to define your beliefs precisely, because no discussion can be fruitful without precise definitions. I never claimed you were OK with rape/murder/genocide; in fact, I specifically stated that I believed you weren't. Obviously you're under no obligation to discuss this with me, but if you do I need you to respond to what I say, or what's the point?


----------



## Imakcerka

alright one more time,

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> OK, trying to keep on topic here....
> 
> How then do you respond to the argument I made in my original post? To recap
> 
> "A woman should have every right to her body" - I assume you mean "every right to do what she wants with her body"? But abortion and infanticide obviously involve someone else's body as well - the baby's - so that should really be phrased as "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else" (or at least, sign the consent form allowing someone else to do the killing).
> 
> Yes, if she's KILLING her unborn child it's her right. I'm using words you probably would appreciate as they're the ones you're already using and I refuse to sugar coat. Yes she may kill her own in utero child. One crappy aspect about being a woman is that the fault/blame/responsibility will always fall on her shoulders.
> 
> If you believe that wholesale, then you eventually descend into complete anarchy - if we can all do whatever we want with our bodies, even if harms others, then rape and murder and theft and genocide are all OK. I'm going to assume you don't believe that.  So presumably you mean "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else, under specific circumstances". Right?
> 
> Under no specific circumstances. When there are "circumstances" in place there is always room to invade the mind and soul of the woman with guilt and unnecessary medical procedures as they are doing now here in the states.
> 
> So what are those circumstances, and how do the circumstances of abortion (which you think should be legal) and infanticide (which you find "disturbing", although I don't believe you commented on whether you felt it should be legal or not) differ? A PP mentioned that a baby in the womb can only be looked after by one specific mother, whereas a baby outside the womb could be looked after by others; but that distinction would seem to assign moral worth to babies solely on the basis of convenience. If it were impossible for a mother to hand over her baby for fostering/adoption; if she were the only person available to care for it; would not infanticide be permissible, under that paradigm? If her "moral compass" were OK with it, and she wanted to use her body as she pleased (ie not feeding and caring for a helpless baby - or I suppose, by extension, an invalid or otherwise helpless person)... would you believe we didn't have the right to force her to do it, and that therefore she could order the death of the baby, or even perform it herself if she wanted to use her body that way?
> 
> You know what would be ideal. Education. We currently have some states refusing to allow any education but abstinence in the school system until the student is 18. There are no avenues for these kids to learn about the proper way to care for themselves other than their parents and more times than not the parents will not teach them either.
> 
> Do I honestly think babies should die due to a possible special needs outcome, no. Do I really think babies need to die at all? No absolutely not. However in the times we're dealing with it's NOT black and white at all. I don't like the idea of abortion and I wish there was never a need for it. However I do believe the right to make that decision for yourself is important. Nobody should be able to make it for you.
> 
> In other words: you seem to be pro-choice but anti-infanticide, but what's your reasoning that finds a moral distinction between the two?
> 
> I suppose it's because I see the child who is born to be just that a child and the one in utero a possibility.


----------



## Smokering

Quote:


> Yes, if she's KILLING her unborn child it's her right. I'm using words you probably would appreciate as they're the ones you're already using and I refuse to sugar coat. Yes she may kill her own in utero child.


OK, now we're getting somewhere. Next question: why?

Quote:


> Under no specific circumstances. When there are "circumstances" in place there is always room to invade the mind and soul of the woman with guilt and unnecessary medical procedures as they are doing now here in the states.


I don't think you understood me. The "under specific circumstances" phrasing was meant to rule out women killing just anyone, for the sake of precision; as in, a woman may kill her unborn child, but not, say, her teenage daughter.

Quote:


> You know what would be ideal. Education. We currently have some states refusing to allow any education but abstinence in the school system until the student is 18. There are no avenues for these kids to learn about the proper way to care for themselves other than their parents and more times than not the parents will not teach them either.
> 
> Do I honestly think babies should die due to a possible special needs outcome, no. Do I really think babies need to die at all? No absolutely not. However in the times we're dealing with it's NOT black and white at all. I don't like the idea of abortion and I wish there was never a need for it. However I do believe the right to make that decision for yourself is important. Nobody should be able to make it for you.


That's a complete non sequiter. I doesn't answer my question at all!

Quote:


> I suppose it's because I see the child who is born to be just that a child and the one in utero a possibility.


There scientific evidence is against you. A "possibility" doesn't have a heartbeat, brainwaves, DNA, pain receptors, organs etc. Whether or not a fetus is a person is a matter for philosophical debate, but a fetus is most definitely, absolutely a being, not a concept.


----------



## TiredX2

This is completely a debate about abortion at this point. I would like to leave the discussion up but the debate about abortion *must* end.

If you would like to go back to the original topic, feel free to do so.


----------



## suzywan

The government cannot compel a human being to use their body to keep another human alive against their will, unless of course they categorize the former as a different kind of human which certain factions tend to do. Women as a class can get pregnant, so their bodily autonomy and personal sovereignty is not nearly as sacred as those who cannot get pregnant. It's very simple.

Religion is the red herring. It may inform your personal beliefs, but has no business informing legislation (in the US, anyway). Most conservative US religions think life starts at conception. Many non-mainstream Eastern religions do not. Many other religions don't care either way. Who's right? Who cares?


----------



## Viola

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> OK, now we're getting somewhere. Next question: why?


To keep it from becoming a human being and having legal rights, because things become more complicated at that point. I'm not a slippery slope person, so I see a difference in infanticide vs. the killing of a zygote through an IUD or BCP just as a I see a difference in abortions in the early weeks vs. in the later weeks. But if every zygote is a human, and I admit it's easier just to take the absolute position, then having to use your hand to fill out a tax form is the same as having to use your body to carry a pregnancy through to birth. But as Suzywan points out, the government cannot compel you, which just means they can't make you complete the tax form and they can't make you carry the pregnancy--they can prosecute you if you don't.

But I think that if you have to act as your conscience dictates, and push for making it illegal for a woman to terminate a potential pregnancy, if that is what you believe is morally right. And the people who disagree with this will push for their own agenda.


----------



## Turquesa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Viola*
> 
> To keep it from becoming a human being and having legal rights, because things become more complicated at that point.
> 
> But I think that if you have to act as your conscience dictates, and push for making it illegal for a woman to terminate a potential pregnancy, if that is what you believe is morally right. And the people who disagree with this will push for their own agenda.


To clarify, there is a human being in question. A human being exists from the zygotic phase of development onward. There is no other species to which this separate organism can belong. Perhaps you're referring to the legal and philosophical term "person," which courts have arbitrarily divied out throughout history to grant or deny legal rights to various demographics.

Also, could you clarify for me what you mean by "terminat[ing] a potential pregnancy?" If you're potentially pregnant, you're not pregant. So wouldn't terminating that condition require getting pregnant?









But to move this slightly away from the abortion issue, this article touches on one of the last socially acceptable forms of discrimination in our culture--discrimination against the disabled. Historically, the phenomenon has always been present. The Romans fed disabled babies to the wolves. And subsequent Western cultures have had an extremely tainted history of parading them around in circuses, shackling them in chains and throwing them into dungeons with the "insane," declaring them "unfit" and "feeble-minded" (as the early 20th century eugencists did), performing dangerous scientific experiments on them without their knowledge or informed consent, and even forcing them into sterilization.

None of this is to minimize what other oppressed populations have endured; however, this is the only population that I have seen philosophers in a major academic journal consider so "disposable." (And please keep in mind that these authors are arguing that it's OK to kill the non-disabled infants, as well, provided that they are "unwanted.") As another current example of of this discrimination, has anybody been following this story? 

Could you imagine if the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia denied life-saving treatment to somebody because of their race, ethnicity, religion, etc.? Cornell West and Al Sharpton would be all over the media about it. But obviously, the intellectually disabled have no Ivy League scholars or eloquent leaders from their own population to speak for them, and few people have even heard about this story. I would be very--VERY!--interested to see this topic (the link in the OP) cross-posted in MDC's Special Needs forum. I'm sure that those mamas would have a lot to say about this issue...


----------



## branditopolis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smokering*
> 
> Please explain how your link is at all relevant to my argument? I've seen that page before, and it doesn't address either of my points; all it does is point out the hypocrisy of some "pro-life" (although obviously not) individuals, which isn't really the issue at hand.
> 
> As for the rest of my post, *I disagree that it's inflammatory* (certainly no more so than your original statements, to which I was responding) and it certainly wasn't intended as a personal attack; but if you feel it warrants reporting, report it. Otherwise, feel free to point out any errors of reasoning in my argument, or respond rationally to it.


I am, in fact, "inflamed".


----------



## branditopolis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *suzywan*
> 
> The government cannot compel a human being to use their body to keep another human alive against their will, unless of course they categorize the former as a different kind of human which certain factions tend to do. Women as a class can get pregnant, so their bodily autonomy and personal sovereignty is not nearly as sacred as those who cannot get pregnant. It's very simple.
> 
> *Religion is the red herring. It may inform your personal beliefs, but has no business informing legislation (in the US, anyway). * Most conservative US religions think life starts at conception. Many non-mainstream Eastern religions do not. Many other religions don't care either way. Who's right? Who cares?


----------

