|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 3/1/2012 5:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 4995
Oh this is gonna get ugly. Debate wise I think. But I say in my own opinion after having held a baby in my arms there is no way I could agree to killing a disabled baby. My first one we found out later was autistic and her adopted family takes care of her with love and hope. All babies should be given a chance to live. I just personally dont agree with abortions or killing. G.  |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 5:49:00 AM
From Authorid: 27705
Alright I will admit I believe in the right for abortion but under the standard rule of within the 12 weeks. I think it is a personal choice, and not an easy one to make and in return something to live with the rest of your life. I believe anything outside of this regular abortion time period (12 weeks) unless the mother is in danger of not surviving the pregnancy is ridiculous. If you haven't made the choice that you do not want to have a baby by the 12 week mark then look into letting someone adopt the child. As for ending a baby's life after it is born I agree with you that it is a complete lack of humanity. What's next we will kill someone if they look at us the wrong way? (Oh wait this does happen sometimes)  |
Date: 3/1/2012 6:01:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15228
Silversnake, I don't agree with abortion, but I do agree that it should be legal up to 12 weeks as well...I guess that is kind of a contradiction.  |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 6:04:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15228
Don't get me wrong, I'm not marching on washington to preserve the right. The most foolish thing the Supreme court did was their ruling on roe v wade. Abortion should be treated like gun rights...left up to each state to decide and we could have avoided all this controversy. |
Date: 3/1/2012 6:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 3680
Wow...How is this even a discussion among the medical community? I hope they burn in hell.  |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 6:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 64819
I dang near had a panic attack reading this. If accepted, early on it will be by choice, the more it is accepted, the gov't can make the decision for you. I'm pro-choice to a certain extent, I personally wouldn't have an abortion, but I'm not gonna knock someone who does. There are many disabilities that can not be seen at birth, such as autism, that usually doesn't present til after age one. Would those children be at risk? As for disabled children, although it may be a burden to the parents that created the child, there are many other people that would take that child and give him/her a warm, loving, and nurturing home to grow up in. I just don't agree with it at all.  |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 7:04:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15228
Good point about Autism, Adora. Could include many disabilities that aren't apparent right away. Deafness, blindness, maybe a childhood cancer that would make these children morally irrelevant? |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 7:07:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15228
Also, we are focusing on disabilities, but they include all babies in general. What if you aren't happy with the sex of the baby? Or it's hair color? Maybe the baby has bowed legs...any reason would do since the baby is not morally relevant. |
Date: 3/1/2012 7:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
I have actually read the full paper, and as far as I can tell, its arguments are valid. If anyone has any specific questions about it, I would be happy to answer them.  |
Date: 3/1/2012 7:40:00 AM
From Authorid: 53427
Morally irrevelant? Anyone seen the Obsolete man episode from the Twilight Zone? Where, the futuristic government executes people who have become obsolete to their modern ways? It must have been forseeing this. Or channeling Hitler, and his one perfect race.  |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 7:53:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15228
You're right, Snookums. This actually isn't all that new. The whole Eugenics movement was based on this theory. Our very own Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, was a proponent of Eugenics believing that they were both working to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit". Hitler actually got his idea's on eugenics from the movement here in the United States, and in fact the Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz. |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 7:55:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15228
THAT is one slippery slope! |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 8:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Eugenics doesn't have anything to do with this paper. As you pointed out in an earlier comment, it regards the killing of perfectly healthy newborns as potentially permissible. |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 8:29:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15228
Same premise, Dark Phoenix. They've taken away the babies humanity by saying it will be a burden not only to its parents, but to the State which might have to fund services for the child. Perhaps they haven't gone as far as saying it's for the good of the human race to weed out the undesirables, but the end result is the same. |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 8:35:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15228
It's interesting to me, Dark Phoenix, that you would support this. What if someone chose an 'after birth abortion' because the baby could be homosexual? Not so far-fetched since they have been looking for a gene that causes homosexuality. Would you support the death of a baby for having that gene, the same as if the baby is an unwanted female child vs the wanted male child? |
Date: 3/1/2012 10:41:00 AM
From Authorid: 37843
Ok, there is no such thing as "after-birth-abortion" That is called murder... I also consider partial birth abortion flat out murder because it takes place at a point where the baby could live outside the womb.  |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 10:54:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15228
White Penguin, I agree, it is infanticide they are talking about. Why not call it what it is? |
Date: 3/1/2012 11:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 14314
That is just wrong!!! That is murder   |
Date: 3/1/2012 1:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 45948
All I can say is this is sooo wrong on so many levels. This is called murder!!!! I can't believe people would even think of this much less write a paper and make it public. Wow.  |
Date: 3/1/2012 4:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 14018
I must say I am pro-choice when it comes to abortions. Who is the state or any to say they have a right to another's body. The person having the abortion is who will be living with the choice. I support people having their rights to their body. That being said. When a baby is born it has its own body that is no longer needing another body to take care of it so it then becomes a person and can then make its own decisions. If it wants to die later then that is that person's choice. I would never ask a rape victim to keep and have a baby because someone else thinks they rights over that person's body. No one has the rights to my body or life but me. So don't count on me agreeing with anyone who thinks they have a right to make anyone go with their beliefs over someone else's body due to their moral or religious beliefs.  |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 4:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
@Kelly, it’s simply true that all newborns are burdens to their parents and/or to the state. Stating that doesn’t take away the “humanity” of the newborn. Most newborns provide more benefits than burdens, however; it’s only in those cases where this is not true that the authors believe killing is permissible. To answer your second question, I haven’t yet made up my mind whether or not I agree with their position or whether it’s necessarily wrong to abort (or kill a newborn) based on gender, sexual orientation etc. It should be pointed out that in most cases the authors think it would be preferable to have an early abortion rather than having to kill a late-term foetus or newborn child. The reason they call it “after birth abortion” is to emphasise their belief that the moral status of a newborn infant is equal to that of a foetus. |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 4:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
@Haunted, the authors of the paper don't believe that a newborn baby is a "person" in the sense that they have a moral right to life the same way you or I does. This is because they believe that the right not to be killed depends upon whether or not a person is able to perceive the deprivation of their life as a loss. Newborns, so they argue, are not sufficiently developed to have these kinds of attitudes- they consider foetuses and newborns to be 'potential' persons, so they think it can be permissible to kill them, since they are not harmed by being deprived of something that they are incapable of valuing (i.e., their life). |
| Date: 3/1/2012 5:35:00 PM ( Admin-Z ) All comments are reviewed by the administrators and are subject to deletion at their discretion. Vulgarities, name calling, insults and comments unrelated to stories will be deleted first. No exceptions! |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 5:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 53427
I think its animalistic, it sounds like putting babies to sleep, like puppies in the pound. What have we as human beings, when we can do this, or even consider it? |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 5:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 53427
meant to say What have we BECOME^^^ |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 6:58:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15228
Haunted, I do think it is relevant to suggest that people seriously use and apply birth control properly as a way around having to make the terrible decision of abortion. You would think this was the dark ages and there are no options besides abortion. I can think of lots of things to get passionate about, abortion isn't one of them. Unfortunately, so many woman are irresponsible with their bodies that if a license was required to have sex, many would be to dumb to pass the test. Sorry, but with all the birth control options available and roughly a million abortions performed each year, there is no excuse in it. I'm pretty sure there aren't a million pregnant rape victims every year and with the morning after pill available, thankfully that is less and less common although I know passionate pro abortion people love to use that as an example. |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 7:05:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15228
Dark Phoenix, honestly, your argument makes no sense. The baby is a burden, therefore it can be killed, but it doesn't take away it's humanity?? I just don't understand that thinking. If my baby had a disability, or if it was homosexual, or if it looked like my dog, it's a human deserving of all the love and protection I morally should give. If I couldn't provide it, than someone is always waiting to adopt these babies. |
|
Date: 3/1/2012 7:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 14018
Kelly I am so very glad you like having someone tell you what to do with your body. I wll NEVER be someone like that. It is my body and my choice. You don't have to like my choices nor do I have to like yours, however it is my choice same as you. |
Date: 3/1/2012 10:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 63366
When they move out or go to college...just kidding  |
|
Date: 3/2/2012 2:55:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
@Kelly, in order to understand how the argument works, you have to understand the premises from which it begins. The authors begin by assuming that abortion is permissible under certain circumstances, but this assumption is obviously rejected by many people. What they want to argue is that *if* you accept certain assumptions, then certain conclusions logically follow. One of these assumptions, for example, is that a foetus may permissibly be aborted if it is severely handicapped. Suppose for example that a woman is pregnant with a foetus which has a 50% chance of having a disability so severe that the woman would be permitted to abort the foetus if she knew that it was so severely disabled. But suppose that tests for this disability are only 50% effective while the child is in the womb. Suppose that initial tests suggest that the child is probably not disabled, but suppose that as soon as the child is born, doctors are able to run tests showing that the child does in fact have the disability. In a case like this, the point these researchers would make is that there is no moral difference between the child outside of the womb now, or inside the womb 10 minutes ago. They would say that *if* it was permissible to abort/kill the child while it was still inside the mother, then it should still be permissible to abort/kill the child once it is outside of the mother, since the justification in both cases is the same. |
| Date: 4/7/2012 1:18:00 AM From Authorid: 65974 even though it is morally wrong to have an abortion, their need to be some extreme circumstances to consider this as an option that would not go against their beliefs regarding life. it should never be taken lightly where the ultimate decision can have ramifications that can last a lifetime. when it comes to these kind of matters, no one is an expert. |
| Date: 4/7/2012 1:49:00 AM From Authorid: 65974 okay read the article and wondering if it is possible that people who chose to have an abortion are merely using the disability probability as a justifiable reasoning (excuse if you will) to remove the life long burden for not wanting kids. these so called expects are making an argument to pro choice advocates whose dogma is the right to choose more than these reasons behind it. it is bad no matter this subject is being twisted. |
Date: 4/7/2012 9:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 64365
Then that should make abortion murder.  |
| Date: 3/11/2014 4:33:00 PM From Authorid: 67223 I'm very Pro-choice, and I think that abortion should be legal in ALL cases. No one has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body at all. The fetus is property of HER body until birth. Everyone always thinks of protecting the fetus, but doesn't ever think of the mother or child after he/she is born. I don't get why anyone has to butt into a woman's sex life so much, and wants to control her body that bad. Killing a baby is way different than aborting a fetus, especially an early term abortion. There's way too many unwanted, abused, and neglected children in this world who are waiting to be adopted. I'd like to see more "pro-lifers" protesting the faulty and highly flawed adoption system, where everyone just wants healthy babies, but leaves older children and sick children. I'm sorry I sound mean, I'm just tired of people butting into people's lives, especially their sex life. Less people would be having unwanted pregnancies if there was proper sex education, where I think all religious beliefs shouldn't interfere with education or government services. If there were more people teaching proper protective sex, we wouldn't be having abortions. I think it should just stay legal, just in case. I'd rather people have children they wanted and loved, than have oops babies into a bad situation that will mess up the kid for live. |
|
Date: 10/27/2014 9:03:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15228
"Butt into a woman's sex Life". Woman want tax payers to buy their contraceptives. I guess that should give me a say in their sex life, right? |
Date: 11/9/2020 4:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 4144
Make your choice before making a baby.  |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
