[Schabesbert]

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions‘ as Newborns ’Are Not Persons’


After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

I don't think I need to comment. You know where I stand.

[Javelin]

Is the 87th Trimester abortion still illegal? Then I think anytime the baby breeches the womb it is killing and that is terrible.

[Altaris]

There are several people I work with that I would like to abort.


Ok, on a serious note, after birth abortion is something I am totally against. You gave birth to the baby, let it grow up and have a chance.

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Altaris

There are several people I work with that I would like to abort.


Ok, on a serious note, after birth abortion is something I am totally against. You gave birth to the baby, let it grow up and have a chance.

Then how about 10 minutes before it's born?

[Roering]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions‘ as Newborns ’Are Not Persons’


After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

I don't think I need to comment. You know where I stand.

I guess ethics is not necessary to have in order to be an ethicist.

[Altaris]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

Then how about 10 minutes before it's born?

Well then I say kill em all!!!





What's the difference. Any child can be born 10min early or 10min late, so it doesn't change a thing as far as it being a fully functioning human.

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Altaris

Well then I say kill em all!!!





What's the difference. Any child can be born 10min early or 10min late, so it doesn't change a thing as far as it being a fully functioning human.

How about a day early?

[Altaris]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

How about a day early?

I knew that is what you were trying to do. Why don't you just come out and ask the question of how far back is ok instead of playing games?


Me personally am totally against abortions at all, except for the rare case that the mothers life is at risk and she has to choose. I think everyone should have a chance to grow up and contribute to this world. I would hate to think someone killed the next Einstein. I am also in favor of the death penalty. The difference is that the adult has proven themselves to be worthless scum, where as the child, or soon to be child, hasn't even had the opportunity to prove if they are good or bad.

[Javelin]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

How about a day early?

What if the parents want to just give it a "test drive" and see how things go? Then if they decide it is not the model for them they can merely dispose of it?

The logic is all pretty much the same other than the "Test Drive" theory might actually yield a living child vs. the partial birth abortion theory which pretty much just yields a dead one.

[Vic Hays]

[QUOTE=Schabesbert;18643737

I don't think I need to comment. You know where I stand.[/QUOTE]

What if they are heretics?

[Foxtrotx1]

Here is a proposition.

The ability to pump blood seems like a good place to call it a night. Why?

Without a working heart or pumping blood what is it? That is detectable at the 6-7 week btw.

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Foxtrotx1

Here is a proposition.

The ability to pump blood seems like a good place to call it a night. Why?

Without a working heart or pumping blood what is it?

A baby with a developing heart?

[Foxtrotx1]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

A baby with a developing heart?

As a person with a biology degree, I have a hard time identifying a lump of cells that has none of the typical "baby" characteristics and can't pump it's own blood as a baby. No, I'm not an atheist. developing heart? Developing doesn't mean it has a working one yet.

Baby is a buzz word you're using to conjure images of people smashing in heads of toddlers with a hammer. At 5 weeks most people would have a hard time identifying which species a human fetus belonged.

[packsaddle]

Most abortionists are evolutionists and vice versa, which disqualifies them a priori from discussing things that are absolutely timeless, true, certain, and eternal....things such as ethics, morality, right, wrong, logic, validity, etc.

[RC-RAMIE]

Originally Posted by packsaddle

Most abortionists are evolutionists and vice versa, which disqualifies them a priori from discussing things that are absolutely timeless, true, certain, and eternal....things such as ethics, morality, right, wrong, logic, validity, etc.

Religion does not have a exclusive on ethics, morality, right, wrong, and surely not logic and validity. They sure got all of them wrong in the past.


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

[Geko45]

When does life start? Certainly not at the stage of a fertilized egg, but also well before birth. As an athiest, I look to medical science to address the question. I would propose that once an embryo/fetus has typically developed a central nervous system (a mind) then abortion shouldn't be allowed. This is, from what I understand, fairly early in the process, but not so early as to discount a morning after type emergency contraception.

[Japle]

I'm not just pro-choice, I'm pro abortion.

We've got too many people on this rock already.

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Foxtrotx1

Without a working heart or pumping blood what is it? That is detectable at the 6-7 week btw.

6-7 weeks from when?
I think you mean 6-7 weeks from the last period. Meaning about 3-4 weeks from fertilization, and probably 1-2 weeks from the time that most people would have a clue that they might, might, be pregnant.

But that's really beside the point.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Japle

I'm not just pro-choice, I'm pro abortion.

We've got too many people on this rock already.

Time for some "life raft" ethics???

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Japle

I'm not just pro-choice, I'm pro abortion.

We've got too many people on this rock already.

So, then, back to the OP: why or why not?

[kjm1016]

Wouldn't a post-birth abortion be called "murder"? Isn't that already illegal in all 50 states? What's to debate?

[Roering]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

What if they are heretics?

I'm almost afraid to ask this Vic but.......what does that have to do with anything?

[Sarge1400]

Originally Posted by Javelin

The logic is all pretty much the same other than the "Test Drive" theory might actually yield a living child vs. the partial birth abortion theory which pretty much just yields a dead one.

There has never been a "partial birth", either a baby is born or it's not.

Partial birth is a term made up by anti-choicers to add more emotion to an already emotional issue.

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by kjm1016

Wouldn't a post-birth abortion be called "murder"? Isn't that already illegal in all 50 states? What's to debate?

So far, the answer is "kind of."
Obama, though, has spoken out against "born alive" bills in the Ill State Senate. In other words, against protecting a baby who was born alive as a result of a botched abortion, allowing it to be killed either through neglect or outright.

But read the articles that I linked to.

[Altaris]

Originally Posted by packsaddle

Most abortionists are evolutionists and vice versa, which disqualifies them a priori from discussing things that are absolutely timeless, true, certain, and eternal....things such as ethics, morality, right, wrong, logic, validity, etc.

Way off base and wrong.
I am an atheist, and I guess you could use the word evolutionist for that I agree with the Fact of Evolution, like you could use Gravitiest for fact of Gravity.

"Things such as ethics, morality, right, wrong, logic, validity, etc".... as you point out, do not come from religion. Religion does not dictate morality. Morality is what comes from the person and his tribe. Religion is what would cause an otherwise sane and moral person to commit evil acts.