Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

[miles]

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded 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”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“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.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

You don't say?

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

What is the opinion of Blue Moon?

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

Don't jump on me until I'm finished with what I have to say:

I get where they are coming from - in the sense what they are talking about; they are talking about infants that are "unnecessary/unwanted" in a really underhanded way. The way they approach it is by using the term "Morally" which in this case, shouldn't be used. What they really mean in this is that they are trying to implement their own artificial "Natural Selection" since animals [in reality - at least amongst the other animals of the planet] do not keep unwanted babies or deformed/disabled babies. They are simply left to die since abortion isn't an option for them.

However, in this case, if they are going to go with, "can't contribute to their own existence" that isn't true. As soon as a child is born, it has a conscious mind and the ability to register sounds, images, and form flimsy but actual thought. With a fetus [classified as before the second trimester] does not have this ability whatsoever. It can feel pain, since the nerves have been developing, but it has no actual consciousness - which is why abortion is practically non-existent after three months unless the baby is a danger to the mother's health. A fetus is a mass of underdeveloped organs, body mass, and cells. Pretty much, a lump of organic biological matter.

With an actual newborn child, it can express itself emotionally and physically. Fetuses can't do this since they can't function outside of the mother's womb much less survive.

So no, I don't agree with this whatsoever. If you don't want to take care of your disabled child-simply because it is disabled in a way that genetics deemed proper- then put it up for adoption because there are people who will take care of it.

They changed the terms so it sounds more "ethical" and "humane" when it's neither of those things really. Being a biology student, I can see the logical side of it, but as a person, I can see the wrongness in it.

 

[Razgriz]

Wow, talk about a touchy subject...........Actually, touchy is a horrid understatement. Though I color myself surprised I have not heard of this.

Regardless, like Hahvoc stated, as a scientist I can see the logic in it. If the child is indeed suffering unbearably and posing a financial/emotional burden on the family, logic would dictate the newborn be euthanized so as to 'cleanse' the bad genes from the gene pool.

However, my own personal stance is a tad murky, but I largely lean to the point that (again, Hahvoc, sorry if I keep ripping you off, lol) they should be put up for adoption. I mean, if this were actually practiced in large case numbers, people like Stephen Hawking wouldn't be around today. I mean, the guy has Lou Ghreig's disease and cerebral palsy, and yet he's sired several (healthy) children, is married, and even went through a zero-g training exercise with astronauts! If that's not a successful case, then I don't know what is.

 

[miles]

Are there really that many people lined up waiting to adopt disabled children? Regular children and babies have a hard enough time as it is surviving the system. I do not think it is morally wrong to euthanize infants who have almost no chance at all for a normal life or anyone to care and love them. Whether they're destined for greatness or deserve a chance or not, the fact is most of those "unwanted" infants will never be given those opportunities. Life for the sake of living can be cruelty.

 

[Razgriz]

Having never adopted a child myself, I can't honestly answer that. But I can imagine there are many couples out there who have the patience and understanding it requires to raise a children affected (to any degree) by their disability.

And what you say is true; my example with Stephen Hawking was merely an example of how one could succeed even with the odds stacked against them. Though that's the inherent 'evil' in morality and ethics; it really depends on the interested parties. Of course, this is a standard imposed by social customs of humanity; the other species of the jungle have predators (not to mention their own instinct) to sort out 'the sick, the lame and the elderly'.

 

[Wingshadow]

Alright, I understand that some of you may sling veggies at me for saying all of this, but please hear me out.

Perhaps my own personal bias is getting ahead of me, but am I wrong in asking the rather obvious question: Why the heck are we even listening to people who are trying to justify this? No matter how they couch the terms, the unborn baby or fetus is just as much a human as you or I. We cannot deny that if we did not abort them, before or after birth, they would grow up to be a thinking, feeling individual just as much as you or I. If it is wrong for us to kill terminally ill adults or people who are suffering from an incurable form of cancer or other serious ailment, how is it right for us to do the same thing to babies?

Where do we draw the line? If we can kill children simply because they are not convenient, wanted, or desired, regardless of the "scientific" justification where does it end? May we start killing off children who are judged inferior in intelligence? Should we terminate them based on gender or appearance? At what point do we say, "enough is enough already?" How can we justify the intentional termination of other human's lives, especially when they are the weakest and least able to defend themselves of the entire population?

Please understand that I do not mean this as a personal attack at anyone, but merely expressing my view of the situation and presenting some issues and questions that we all need to consider.

 

[Razgriz]

While the issues of morality you present are very much valid, I should nudge you back in the direction of this article. It's not really meant to say kill children that are 'inconvenient', more children whose life can be expected to be far less than desirable or have to endure extreme physical suffering because of their condition. Of course, the way they worded the paragraphs in the article itself could have been more professional, I won't disagree there.

But no, you are not wrong in asking the question. But there truly lies a grey area where exactly a fetus possessing humanity begins. Some say it's at the moment of conception, others say it's after the second trimester, and others still say it's when the baby is born. Sure it would grow up into an individual; but a counter-argument could be that we terminate thousands of chickens before they develop (as eggs for sustenance, in case anyone happened to be wondering). They would grow up into fine chickens, but they don't because there's a reason for their termination. The question of validity lies in people's choice to eat them or not; the same kind of logic applies here. Does it feel when the shell is cracked? We can never know; much like a human embryo, it's (god, it's a wonder I haven't been accused of plagarism, haha) like Hahvoc said, a lump of largely dissociated cells.

Though I have to disagree with you on being wrong in assisting in the suicide of terminally ill patients; would you say it's wrong to keep them alive when they're clearly suffering from the degenerative effects of their ailment? Is that not more cruel than the sweet release death can bring? Especially if they ask for you to kill them with no hope of a cure? Sorry if I got a little melodramatic there, but I think the point stands.

And never accuse yourself of bias, dear; your points are well taken and very potent topics of discussion. They're your judgments based on your personal sentiments. One could indeed argue that this would be taken too far; who judges what the 'best' conditions are for living? And while I can list a variety of scenarios where the willful termination of life would be indeed preferential, it would turn into a "tl;dr" and make people lose interest.

 

[Wingshadow]

What I am objecting to is the loose definitions with which this "professional" opinion has been written. Exactly what constitutes a "disabled fetus"? Also, if it is justifiable to abort a perfectly healthy fetus (as I am sure happens quite frequently) based solely on the will of the mother then how is it any different from aborting a born, unwanted child even if he or she is perfectly healthy as well? The professionals are correct in saying that both are equally valid, but I do not agree that either ARE valid or justifiable.

Personally, I believe that a fetus possesses humanity from the moment of conception since it is undeniable that from that point on (amusing no miscarriage of course) that the fetus will develop into a living, breathing, thinking human. It should not matter whether or not the fetus happens to be able to feel pain or possesses obvious signs of conscious thought. Do adult humans who loose the ability to feel pain (through illnesses such as modern-day leprosy) loose their humanity as well? Perhaps this sounds like a silly argument, but if we apply the same standards to adults many more people will find something a bit off with their statements.

The termination of animals is not the same as humans, as animals do not possess the same rights as humans do. We are justified in tending to and making use of the resources in the world (including the animals) in whatever way we see fit assuming we are being responsible with them. The same does not apply to human lives since humans are not simply another natural resource like iron or chickens. I'm not accusing anyone of holding this belief, but I am merely making my own position clear.

I believe that there is a clear difference between deeming someone "unfit to live" (that is, someone outside themselves making this judgement) and someone denying themselves medical care that would preserve their own life. If someone is terminally ill and wishes to forgo treatment, that is his or her own personal judgement to make. However, no one asks the baby (or fetus) his or her opinion in the matter.

Perhaps I sound a bit paranoid when I say this, but if we begin to make judgement on the lives of others, holding ourselves to be the standard of judgement of whether someone should live or die, how are we any different than the many hated groups which preached the superiority of certain races over others and resulted in millions of innocent lives being lost? To what end where these people sacrificed? They justified themselves by deeming them unfit to live and stating that they would have been expunged from the earth naturally had the principal of "survival of the fittest" been allowed to function properly. If we can dictate the lives of children, why can't we also dictate the lives of adults? Its a slippery slope that I refuse to even consider, given the implications of allowing ourselves to start down that path.

Please keep in mind that I am not accusing anyone of believing that we can apply the same standards to adults or nations for that matter that people are currently applying to fetuses. I am saying that what the "professionals" are saying currently is leading toward that way of thinking, and if one is justified in our minds what is it that keeps us from continuing down that line of thinking in the future?

 

[miles]

Personally, I believe that a fetus possesses humanity from the moment of conception since it is undeniable that from that point on (amusing no miscarriage of course) that the fetus will develop into a living, breathing, thinking human. It should not matter whether or not the fetus happens to be able to feel pain or possesses obvious signs of conscious thought. Do adult humans who loose the ability to feel pain (through illnesses such as modern-day leprosy) loose their humanity as well? Perhaps this sounds like a silly argument, but if we apply the same standards to adults many more people will find something a bit off with their statements.

This is where your logic is screwy, toots. There is plenty of research out there that validates the concept that a fetus is not yet considered a human person but just a potential being. And I think it is a bit numb-brained to compare this discussion to that of adults since fetuses cannot make decisions for themselves. So, just because they're technically humans and all life is precious and sacred, we are absolved of responsibility and they are now forced to live lives of pain? Who's really benefiting here?

The termination of animals is not the same as humans, as animals do not possess the same rights as humans do. We are justified in tending to and making use of the resources in the world (including the animals) in whatever way we see fit assuming we are being responsible with them. The same does not apply to human lives since humans are not simply another natural resource like iron or chickens. I'm not accusing anyone of holding this belief, but I am merely making my own position clear.

I disagree with you here again. Humans are animals too and have no more right to rule the planet than the birds and fish. I wasn't the one who compared killing fetuses to killing animals, but if we're going to do a comparison like that, then I'd be more inclined to cite natural selection and predation as a factor that does not exist for us. It doesn't mean that it's not necessary.

I believe that there is a clear difference between deeming someone "unfit to live" (that is, someone outside themselves making this judgement) and someone denying themselves medical care that would preserve their own life. If someone is terminally ill and wishes to forgo treatment, that is his or her own personal judgement to make. However, no one asks the baby (or fetus) his or her opinion in the matter.

What about those patients who can't make the decision for themselves? So, we're going to spend taxpayers dollars to help keep someone alive who's not even aware of themselves anymore and who can no longer contribute to society or their own sense of wellbeing? Obviouslty you cannot ask a baby's opinion and that's the whole point. Just because they cannot say anything or do not know any better, we'll thrust them into a life that they probably wouldn't choose given the choice.

Perhaps I sound a bit paranoid when I say this, but if we begin to make judgement on the lives of others, holding ourselves to be the standard of judgement of whether someone should live or die, how are we any different than the many hated groups which preached the superiority of certain races over others and resulted in millions of innocent lives being lost? To what end where these people sacrificed? They justified themselves by deeming them unfit to live and stating that they would have been expunged from the earth naturally had the principal of "survival of the fittest" been allowed to function properly. If we can dictate the lives of children, why can't we also dictate the lives of adults? Its a slippery slope that I refuse to even consider, given the implications of allowing ourselves to start down that path.

..did you seriously just compare this to the holocaust? I think that whole "slippery slope" nonsense is baloney. We're not going to go from mercifully ending the lives of fetuses and infants who would only become a burden on the state because nobody wants them to suddenly killing Jews. That's totally extreme and ridiculous. It's emotional, sensationalist bullcrap.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

I know Raz said something about killing thousands of chickens due to the eggs - but the fact is those eggs we eat are actually unfertilized and therefore there isn't any potential for a fetus/chicken to develop. Pretty much eating the chicken equivalent of a woman's menstrual cycle. Sounds gross, but it's true. Chickens consistently lay eggs. It's part of their reproduction cycle unless a Rooster is around to actually impregnate them. Also - at least I know I write eloquently enough to be quoted, lol.

I have to agree with Miles argument against Wingshadow in this. You can't compare this to the practical genocide that was being implemented by the Nazis. That's just fucking insane to try to do. I don't know how you even jumped to that conclusion.

Even though I think after-birth abortion is wrong - just because I've seen videos/read articles/heard stories that would make you sick to your stomach - if the child would have a truly hard life and suffer, then I do think the parents have a right to choose. If it would be more burdensome for the child to live and develop in society with whatever ailment it has, then that's a choice the parents should decide upon. If it does suddenly become some allowance in society [doubtful, considering how up in arms people are about contraception - don't even get me started on that load of horseshit] then rules would be put into place. If you, as a parent, end up having a stupid kid. Well, whatever. You have a stupid kid. But if you end up with a kid who has MS or something really crippling, would you really want your kid to suffer through that just so you could have a kid around? I don't know. I feel like that would be a really tough choice to make.

 

[Wingshadow]

This is where your logic is screwy, toots. There is plenty of research out there that validates the concept that a fetus is not yet considered a human person but just a potential being. And I think it is a bit numb-brained to compare this discussion to that of adults since fetuses cannot make decisions for themselves. So, just because they're technically humans and all life is precious and sacred, we are absolved of responsibility and they are now forced to live lives of pain? Who's really benefiting here?

It doesn't really matter how much "research" goes into something like that. How can you scientifically prove what a human even is? Likewise, how can you prove what isn't a human? I think that this entire "potential being" stuff is bs and just another attempt at rationalizing what they have already decided that they want to do. Let me ask you this, what is worse: living in pain or not even being allowed to live at all? How can we decide for them if they are fit to live? What makes us the gods of life and death?

I disagree with you here again. Humans are animals too and have no more right to rule the planet than the birds and fish. I wasn't the one who compared killing fetuses to killing animals, but if we're going to do a comparison like that, then I'd be more inclined to cite natural selection and predation as a factor that does not exist for us. It doesn't mean that it's not necessary.

If natural selection is the "proper" way for humans to behave, then why do you have any qualms about what the Nazis did? How were they wrong in killing humans that they had the power to do so to? If the "proper" way for us to live is for everyone to be at everyone else's throats, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly that abortions are justifiable "for the greater good of the community" as well as killing disabled babies. However, I disagree that humans should behave in such a manner.

What about those patients who can't make the decision for themselves? So, we're going to spend taxpayers dollars to help keep someone alive who's not even aware of themselves anymore and who can no longer contribute to society or their own sense of wellbeing? Obviouslty you cannot ask a baby's opinion and that's the whole point. Just because they cannot say anything or do not know any better, we'll thrust them into a life that they probably wouldn't choose given the choice.

First of all, I disagree that taxpayer dollars should go toward supporting healthcare, but that is another can of worms that I would rather not open up at the moment. Just suffice it to say that I have studied the subject and found that government intervention in the way that they are currently operating is merely increasing the cost to everyone, so everyone is actually worse off. To directly address your argument, however, I would like to once again point out that no one has the right to determine if someone should or should not live based solely on our own judgement. You ASSUME that because they would have a difficult or painful life that they would simply rather die. How do you actually know that? I know many countries in which the people are suffering terribly, but they don't commit mass suicide or anything. Just because someone cannot make a conscious statement of their wish to live does not give us free license to kill them.

..did you seriously just compare this to the holocaust? I think that whole "slippery slope" nonsense is baloney. We're not going to go from mercifully ending the lives of fetuses and infants who would only become a burden on the state because nobody wants them to suddenly killing Jews. That's totally extreme and ridiculous. It's emotional, sensationalist bullcrap.

How is killing a born or unborn child merciful? You ignore the fact that not all abortions are due to the child being disfigured or disabled in any way. Even highly disabled people can live long and happy lives, even if they were disabled from birth. How is it merciful to take that away from them? My argument is where do we draw the line? If no one draws a line and states that we will never cross it, why do you believe that it is insane to go from killing one defenseless population (infants) to another (Jews)? How are they intrinsically different from each other?

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

Because the Jews were a group of people who were actively involved in society and Hitler deemed them unfit to live because he was a tyrannical crazy asshole who believed all the Jews were out to get him and during WW2, the German people needed someone to blame for their lot in life because they were tired, starving, and lost and easily manipulated into believing that some group of people just HAD to be responsible.

Do research before you bring up something you obviously don't know enough about.

Also- The way Hitler went about it was that he rounded up the Jews in groups - took them from their homes, places of work, and labeled them for death.

Natural Selection doesn't work that way. There isn't mindless slaughter. It's about killing in order to eat and survive another day.

The reason Humans don't "normally" follow Natural Selection is because....FUCKING DUH. We can THINK. We don't HAVE to do things like other animals. That is the only difference. Otherwise, we are all still animals. Always have been and always will be. Animals don't have moral obligations. Humans made that up.

And if you think science can't prove what is human and what isn't....seriously? You're gonna go there? Really? I think you need to look at yourself and ask that question. Science isn't something normally brought up all willy nilly like it's some new fad that just happened to appear on the scene. Basic Biology answers that question. And that fact that you have a brain in your skull which allows you to learn things that other animal groups can't or can't learn as well as you can.

 

[Wingshadow]

I have seen documentaries concerning WW2, and it is clear to me that it was not just a case of a crazy paranoid man who took advantage of the terrible state of the Germans at the time. He used Darwinism to justify his actions, stating that mankind had artificially kept around these "lesser races" when they would have "naturally" been expunged from the earth. Natural selection is about competition within a species or between species for scarce resources or to pass on their genes to the next generation. If there are "too many" jews or other "lesser races" it means there is less available for Germans, whom Hitler deemed a superior and more fit race. I really don't see how you can't "justify" genocide using natural selection if you think along those lines. Is it wrong? Of course it is.

The term "human" is a term or distinction that makes us different from what is "non-human" but how exactly does one go about proving that from a purely scientific standpoint? Science is the process of drawing conclusions (theories) based on observed data. How does one observe the "humanness" of humans, exactly? Sure, we have more developed minds than (other) animals, but is that "humanness"? Unborn, healthy fetuses would develop just as advanced minds as the rest of us if they were allowed to live, so based on that line of reasoning they are 100% human. How is being unable to communicate or defend themselves make them non-human?

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

Reference Above: Biology student. Darwanism is taught in every class I have.

Hitler was crazy. You can't state he wasn't when he clearly wanted to wipe out everyone on the entire planet that wasn't German or the "Aryan" race which were blondes with blue eyes - despite his own image of being a brunette with brown eyes. He may have "Tried" to "use" Darwanism, but he didn't. He told the people that the Jews were responsible for their lot in life. That if the Jews were gone, the world would be better for the Germans because they were in such a shitty position and it seems the "Jews were prospering." It was a, "Why us and not them?" argument. He was charismatic, he had a way with words. After the war was over, a good portion of the German population were ashamed of the fact that they had followed him so blindly because they were so filled with hate from losing the previous war as well.

And I never stated that fetuses were "non-human," so don't assume that I did. The fact is, that everything has the "potential" for better growth and development. Fetuses are in an in-between stage where they either have the potential or don't. It is also said that 30-50 percent of miscarriages happen without a woman even knowing. Those are also potential loses along with the other 10-20 percent of known miscarriages that happen within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

A good half of those women would probably choose to keep the babies if they knew about them. A good half wouldn't because of a multitude of reasons. But you keep saying "healthy fetuses." Based on your own argument, what would you define as "healthy?" Would it be the same as someone else's version of "healthy"? Would it even be the majority's version of "healthy"?

If it hasn't been established already, I'm Pro-choice. A woman has her own responsibility to herself first and to the fetus second until it reaches past the first trimester. Then it's about the baby and less about the woman unless she has second thoughts. I don't agree with after-birth abortion because it is a living, wriggling, crying mass of an organism that can register things a fetus can't. A baby out of the womb can survive after a certain point of development - a fetus can't survive whatsoever because it's not developed enough.

What makes someone human is the fact that they can think and not make decisions based on purely instinct. Would you suddenly argue that a dog is human because it listens to your commands and does what you ask of it? I don't think you would because it's another species entirely. If you are going to get down to it, humans are primates, which are animals. We are a separate species because of our genome, our biology, and our larger brains. Our cells are similar but different. We can only produce viable offspring with other humans. That defines a species, in short.

A lump of cells is just that - a lump of cells. It can be predicted it could develop into a human, a dog, a cat, anything if that's what was formed through reproduction. The end result is known. The development is known. It's the way that the genes activate and deactive that is the unknown. We don't know for sure if a fetus will develop into a "healthy" baby. Some people aren't willing to take that risk. Some people are. Tests can only go so far until science evolves further.

And at one point, humans DID behave in the very real sense of Natural Selection. If a mother couldn't get a baby to nurse, it was left to die. If a baby couldn't properly move it's arms or legs, it was left to die. But that was also thousands and thousands of years ago. We've evolved past that way of doings things....why? Because people invented morals, religion, and law. But even that was only recently changed into something more "civilized." Hell, the Spartans would do "Natural Selection" to produce the strongest babies possible in order to survive. But they were doing it from a purely military standpoint.

Also - you make it seem like everyone is all for killing innocent babies. You also make it seem like no actual research or thought has been put into this. Not everyone is out there with a syringe or shotgun ready to kill some newborns. There aren't gas chambers just waiting for newborns to step in and be murdered on the spot.

What makes a fetus truly different from a newborn is this: Fetuses don't have a brain.

 

[Wingshadow]

The vast majority of abortions are due to reasons other than the health or lack of health of the unborn child. It could be for a variety of reasons, but the end result is that the child is unwanted and treated as a burden, both to the individual as well as the community as a whole. By "healthy" I mean that there are no perceived defects in the child in herself (or himself) and that the choice to terminate them is based on solely non-health related concerns. I am a strong advocate for women to be free to pursue whatever sort of life that they choose to, but where I disagree is when they take it into their own hands to destroy the lives of others, namely their children. People, both men and women, should live their lives while understanding the consequences of their actions.

I believe that the so-called "research" has ignored a vast majority of the actual information surrounding this issue in favor of simply advocating what they have already decided that they wish to support. Many women who undergo abortions are hunted with guilt afterward, and suffer strong emotional pain. When do we hear their side of the story? It is simply ignored. That is not science. I'm also not saying that people are sadistic and relish in the prospect of killing children. No, rather they dehumanize the children in order to stifle their morals, all in the name of "choice" and "convenience." Just because something is convenient does not make it right. Not all choices are moral, either, especially when the choice is to end someone else's life.

Clearly we cannot come to an agreement on this subject, and I do not wish to stir up ill-will or resentment within our RP community, but rather posit my own position. I do not intend to convince anyone that I am correct or that they are wrong and should side with me. I only wish to convey my own personal reasoning on this matter and address whatever issues or arguments you may bring up against my position.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

That's the thing about science - it isn't about emotion. You seem to think it should have that within it, but it doesn't. It focuses on Pros and Cons. That's it. What's beneficial and what isn't. Science isn't always about morals- it's about finding facts. Believe it or not most scientists are active in the religious community. So this "dehumanization" seems to be pretty lacking. Scientists put it into terms that are cut and dry for a reason - so there isn't any question as to what exactly they are talking about. But that's usual - not always. Some will try to change it to suit their needs/agenda/whathaveyou to get funding. But that's the darker side of science, point blank.

As a parent, your child's life is in your hands. No one really tells you how to parent because it's no one else's business unless you beat your kid. That's not discipline, it's just abuse. However, the reasons for terminating a pregnancy are that person's reasons. Not yours. So you say it's okay for a woman to do what she wants as long as...it suits everyone else's guidelines? Or for parents to do what they want as long as it fits strictly within society's standards? Or even your own?

I really can't agree. I don't agree with women who have multiple abortions because they are too stupid to take precautions- that's just outright insane, anyways. But I'm sorry, if I got pregnant and was careful and knew that I wasn't ready and didn't want to subject that child to a potentially horrible life, I'd terminate. But within reason. That's just me. That's just my own opinion. And I don't care how cruel it sounds, if I found out my child was deformed/disabled/had some debilitating disease, I'd still terminate because I'd have to think of what kind of life I could provide my offspring, and how that kind of life would affect myself and others.

 

[Ms_Muffintops]

I knew a woman who ended up aborting her baby because the way she was developing, it was going to be a vegetable. Not just physically, but mentally as well. She'd need professional care for the entirety of her life. In the end, she was mostly considering the ones who were there and live and well. Caring for her child would've taken up a good chunk of their in-come, and a good chunk of her time. She already had 2 kids at home who needed to be raised and taken care of. In the end, she felt it was what was best for her family. It doesn't make her heartless or cruel, she is actually a rather sweet lady who still celebrates what would be her daughters birthday.

I don't think people should abort for physical limitations the child may have, we definitely do have the technology to help out with that, but I could maybe understand mental disabilities. We're already overpopulated as a species, and we're growing at a rapid pace compared to hundreds of years ago. Just around the 1800s-1900s we were at 1-2 billion, now we're up what? 4-5 billion in just 1-2 centuries? What about in the next century? 10 billion? We can't always have such a spiritual outlook on things. At the end of the day we're just one species out of millions that is part of something bigger than us and we are becoming little termites on that thing that is bigger than us. I'm not some animal rights activist but no, I would not say we have more rights than other animals on this planet, we're just more intelligent and higher up the food chain. But it doesn't give us more right to rule this planet.

I don't have too much of a problem with abortion. Just as Hahvy said... if I took all of the proper precautions that I can without denying my baser instincts and urges (to have sex), and I end up pregnant through some fluke in my birth control, then I think I'm morally fine to have an abortion. If I am financially and mentally ready to handle a child, I will do it, but until then, I am not. And I know there are tons of kids in the system waiting to get a home, so I don't want to stick another one in there by adopting (unless I know a couple personally that is looking to adopt).

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

I found out the number is already at 7 billion.