Killing Babies (really this time)

[NoisForm]

Well this is...interesting. I heard of this story via an 'ultra fundamental' radio talk show host who I rarely take seriously, due in part to his hyperbole distorting the reality of whatever it is he's usually discussing. It would appear though, that he got this one right.

As published in the BMJ, the paper advocates the killing of infants, post birth, regardless of health.

from the abstract;

"[font=Georgia]...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.[/font]"


Do you agree with the criterion they use to reach their conclusion?

Do you agree/disagree with their conclusion based on some other criteria?

Could this actually be a boon for the argument of someone with a pro life stance, in that it equates the unborn in the womb (apparently at any stage of development), with a fully formed, born child?

Those of you who consider yourself to be 'pro choice', can you offer a substantive distinction between a late term abortion and this? That is, if you don't believe they are morally equivalent, could you say why?

...and pretty much anything else you'd like to comment on regarding this paper.

[Haven]

There is no qualitative difference between a mid- or late-term fetus and a newborn baby, and if the abortion of one is permissible, the abortion of the other also would be permissible. This is obviously unacceptable -- babies have a right to live, and that cannot be questioned.

This is why I am pro-life -- against abortion in all cases except rape, incest, and when the woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy. If I value the lives of infants (and I do), I also have to value the lives of pre-born babies as well. This puts me into a tiny minority among atheists and non-conservatives (I'm a socialist), but that doesn't matter -- I have to stand for what is right.

[Haven]

I just read through the paper, and it is disgusting. How could anyone reduce an innocent baby's life to cold logic and utter disregard like that? It honestly makes me sick. Stuff like this really makes me ashamed to be associated with academia. Why do we tolerate papers like this?

[Bust Nak]

This is obviously unacceptable -- babies have a right to live, and that cannot be questioned.

Nothing is beyond being questioned. It's okay to reject something based on emotional reason, just have to acknowlege it's not based on rationality.

Why do we tolerate papers like this?

Because we are not religious fundamentalist.

[Goat]

Well this is...interesting. I heard of this story via an 'ultra fundamental' radio talk show host who I rarely take seriously, due in part to his hyperbole distorting the reality of whatever it is he's usually discussing. It would appear though, that he got this one right.

As published in the BMJ, the paper advocates the killing of infants, post birth, regardless of health.

from the abstract;

"[font=Georgia]...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.[/font]"


Do you agree with the criterion they use to reach their conclusion?

Do you agree/disagree with their conclusion based on some other criteria?

Could this actually be a boon for the argument of someone with a pro life stance, in that it equates the unborn in the womb (apparently at any stage of development), with a fully formed, born child?

Those of you who consider yourself to be 'pro choice', can you offer a substantive distinction between a late term abortion and this? That is, if you don't believe they are morally equivalent, could you say why?

...and pretty much anything else you'd like to comment on regarding this paper.

Well, I suspect that this paper was written for other ethicists, precisely to invoke these kind of discussions within the people in that branch of academia, and the reaction of it actually spreading beyond that was a surprise to the ivory tower mentality of the profession.

[Haven]

Nothing is beyond being questioned. It's okay to reject something based on emotional reason, just have to acknowlege it's not based on rationality.

I'm all for questioning the "unquestionable," but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Questioning newborn babies' right to live seems like an excellent place to draw the line.

Because we are not religious fundamentalist.

What does religious fundamentalism have to do with respecting human life? As atheists, shouldn't we have a deeper appreciation for life, since we know it is all we have?

[Bust Nak]

I'm all for questioning the "unquestionable," but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Questioning newborn babies' right to live seems like an excellent place to draw the line.

Why draw any lines at all? The answer that newborn babies shouldn't be killed may be obvious to most, but the difference between answering a question with an obvious "no!" and saying a question shouldn't be asked is huge.

What does religious fundamentalism have to do with respecting human life? As atheists, shouldn't we have a deeper appreciation for life, since we know it is all we have?

I was referring to tolerating the expression of different views, no matter how offensive we may find that view.

[Yahu]

There is no qualitative difference between a mid- or late-term fetus and a newborn baby, and if the abortion of one is permissible, the abortion of the other also would be permissible. This is obviously unacceptable -- babies have a right to live, and that cannot be questioned.

This is why I am pro-life -- against abortion in all cases except rape, incest, and when the woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy. If I value the lives of infants (and I do), I also have to value the lives of pre-born babies as well. This puts me into a tiny minority among atheists and non-conservatives (I'm a socialist), but that doesn't matter -- I have to stand for what is right.

How can you be pro-life but advocate abortion in the case of rape? My ex-wife had a daughter by date-rape drug. She loves her daughter. The child was innocent of the crime of the father! He is in prison for his actions. You are advocating the taking of an innocent life which is an abomination to Yah. I suggest you repent of your compromise with evil. Yah forbids us to kill the child for the sins of the father.

Advocating abortion in any case other then when both the life of the mother and child are eminent is just plain evil.

[Haven]

How can you be pro-life but advocate abortion in the case of rape?

I don't think it's fair to require a woman to carry her rapist's baby to term. Why should she be forced -- after the emotional trauma of rape -- to go through the agony of pregnancy and face permanent damage to her body over something that was NOT her decision?

You are advocating the taking of an innocent life which is an abomination to Yah. I suggest you repent of your compromise with evil. Yah forbids us to kill the child for the sins of the father.

I lack belief in Yah, so this is irrelevant to me.

Advocating abortion in any case other then when both the life of the mother and child are eminent is just plain evil.

I disagree, see above.

[Yahu]

How can you be pro-life but advocate abortion in the case of rape?

I don't think it's fair to require a woman to carry her rapist's baby to term. Why should she be forced -- after the emotional trauma of rape -- to go through the agony of pregnancy and face permanent damage to her body over something that was NOT her decision?

LOL, is if fair to the baby? Justice and Fairness are totally different concepts. I have done rape counseling and understand the issues. The emotional consequences of murdering your own child far exceed your concern.

You are advocating the taking of an innocent life which is an abomination to Yah. I suggest you repent of your compromise with evil. Yah forbids us to kill the child for the sins of the father.

I lack belief in Yah, so this is irrelevant to me.

Then why are you even active on a forum about Christianity? Go take your secular views to a secular forum.

Advocating abortion in any case other then when both the life of the mother and child are eminent is just plain evil.

I disagree, see above.

I started doing rape counseling with my fiance who had been gang raped by 8 men during our 1st engagement. Due to the success of that, many other girls came to me for rape counseling. It was a major problem in the area due to an abundant source of date-rape drugs in the area at the time.

I wouldn't expect a non-believer to agree because my beliefs are based on a different concept then FAIRNESS and I have actual experience in cases of rape. My ex-wife carries severe guilt and shame over even offering to abort her child at the time. She listened to friends that held to your point of view and offered to abort the child. Instead she had that child and loved that child as if it had been my child. That daughter is in her 20s now.

The ONLY decision that is important is: will she face the consequences of murdering her own child or not? Just because she didn't have a say in the conception is irrelevant. The shedding of innocent blood carries severe consequences emotionally. Even giving up a child conceived by rape to adoption carries severe emotional consequences. I have dealt with a case like that as well.

As a rape counselor, dealing with the emotional issues of rape is easier to deal with then murder of a child IMO. One of the girls I did rape counseling for later aborted a child. That screwed up her life far worse. I advised her not to abort. She was one of them that advised my wife to abort her child conceived by rape.