After Birth Abortions! Seriously?

[Didacus]

This may have been posted before, if so my apologies.

 

Link:

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

 

From the article:

 

 

Therefore, the rights and interests of the actual people involved should represent the prevailing consideration in a decision about abortion and after-birth abortion.

 

 

The article is a couple of years old.  The interest of the parents (or mother) trumps the new born, in all cases according to the article.

 

Someone please tell me this isn't a serious position... PLEASE

 

The logical leaps in the article are pretty amazing too... lets see the pham can point them out...

 

And PS; rebuttle article to the above article here:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full/reply#medethics_el_3884

[TheresaThoma]

If that wasn't in a medical journal I would almost consider that satire. Fortunately for now after birth abortion is still illegal.

[Spem in alium]

I recall a satirical video posted recently in which university students were asked to sign a petition arguing for the legalisation of "fourth-trimester" abortion. Most signed it. Just bizarre, and quite sad too.

[Didacus]

Those videos are all over you-tube.

:cry:

[CatherineM]

I think the Spartans did that to filter out the weaklings.

[jumpfrog]

I don't know. I don't think the writers of this article are sincere in the view they are laying out here. I think this article is an attempt to generate discussion and/or controversy. The language used is too bald...I would think that a writer genuinely holding this view would explain it using more technical or euphemistic language. The bald lingo seems designed to expose uncomfortable truths that are rooted in unexamined assumptions that many people have about life issues.

Also, the way that the writers cover all the bases in terms of objections...I'm really skeptical that this is really the writer truely believes. The writing seems a little too low-brow, straightforward and commonsensical in tone to be a real example of academic, scholarly writing, which is usually more specialized and narrow.

Anti-propaganda piece designed to provoke?

[To Jesus Through Mary]

Why is post-birth abortion worse then pre-birth? 

[arfink]

Post-birth abortion (AKA infanticide) has happened and I am sure will continue to happen. Kermit Gosnell did it, he would induce labor and kill the baby after. Many have said that it shouldn't be illegal, although this is hardly a shocker because when you can kill the kid before he's born, why does it matter if he is killed after? They're both horrifying abominations.

[KnightofChrist]

Why is post-birth abortion worse then pre-birth?

It isn't, murder of innocence is murder of innocence. Murdering a baby within the womb is just as evil as murdering one that has been born. I don't believe anyone consciously believes one is worse than the other. But sometimes there seems to be a disconnect, even among pro-lifers, between persons that can be seen, not hidden in the womb, and those not yet born. For example if one were to purpose the idea of murdering blacks because they consider them to be unwanted persons or 'non-persons' for what ever reason. That idea and those that would purpose it would be treated very differently than someone that purposes the same idea for persons not yet born.

But there is also another factor, this makes clear that those who want to murder babies just want to murder babies because they are unwanted, and it has nothing really to do with the mother and the typical excuses and rationalizations that go along with pre-birth abortions.

[Didacus]

Why is post-birth abortion worse then pre-birth? 

 

Both are equivalent, and both are equivalent to murdering an adult individual in any capacity.  Murder is murder plain and simple.

 

 

However, this shows a progression and evolution in the culture of death, moving from one regime (unborn) to a new regime (born), and thus increases opportunity.  A new step down the slippery slope.

 

One thing that isstriking is the language used is akin to the language used by germans in the 1920s and 30s.

 

And no - this is not a reverse argument or counter propaganda; notice it is a medical journal with references to professionals adn published individuals.  The forum and the content of the debate is changing my friends - and I am deeply sadened to see it so.

 

 

 

 

10 years ago, it was argued that there is no difference between killing the born versus the unborn, THEREFORE - abortion is wrong andshould be stopped.

 

Now the argument has become;

There is no difference between killing the born and the unborn, therefore a post-birth abortion should be legal as well!

 

This is not a joke, nor a farce, no fringe opinion anymore.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Didacus

[arfink]

Didacus, nobody here is going to disagree with you on that point. Except possibly Hasan.

[Didacus]

 

HASAN!!!!

 

 

HASAN!!!

 

 

HASANNNNN!!!!!!!!!

[God the Father]

The logic* that permits abortion also permits infanticide so this is not shocking

 

 

*this word here loosely applied

Edited August 15, 2013 by God the Father

[tinytherese]

This appears to be an issue of location. One can legally murder a baby inside to womb (abortion,) but outside of it is not legal (infaniticide.)

 

It reminds me of when small children hide under a blanket and they think that they've "disappeared," when in reality, the child is still there. Lifting the blanket up doesn't magically make them "reappear." They were there the whole time. They were just hiding.

 

I've also heard the argument that abortion is okay because the baby is not fully developed prior to birth. What about babies who are born early (premature)? Those on the medical staff do everything they can so that they baby will live outside the womb. Sadly, that doesn't always happen, but they give their all to try. What if a child was born missing one or more body parts like a leg or fingers that only grew part-way? Are they not human persons? What about babies born with developmental disorders? Are they not human persons?

 

Like previously mentioned, in the womb it is legal to kill them, but for some reason outside of the womb (when they're born,) it is illegal? What is it about the baby needing to be inside of a womb to make it legal?

[Didacus]

The main argument (and by no means do I agree with this thinking) is that a baby in the womb relies on the mother for survival, when a baby outside the womb does not.  There is a reference to this in the article.

 

 

 

With regards to the article, if one follows the logic, anyone who is in a coma stops being human al together, and can in their 'logic', be killed.  Even if the coma s foreseen as potentially ending within a short period of time.