Infanticide

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So what about in-vitro fertilisation? Does the child concieved outside of the womb lose her rights when they implant her in the mother?

Lets not use sloppy terminology now, Ben. Certainly you know that, whatever you call that thing that gets implanted, it is not a child.

[Elok]

Actually, I think he would disagree with that. Again, I'd like to point out that IVF is pretty frigging sick in and of itself, though.

[Tripledoc]

Did the Romans not use it in their propaganda that the Carthagenians supposedly sacrificed children?

I can imagine a situation where a future fundamentalist USA will declare war on a country because they according to 'reliable sources' are guilty of infanticide.

In reality of course the Romans had no evidence other than what their priests cooked up, or what later Roman historians have told us. In reality the war was caused by an oversupply of Roman copper coins which sparked an economic crisis.

Children today in the Third World are dying on a grand scale due to lack of acces to clean water and basic medicines. This is in large extent caused by IMF and World Bank demands that these facilities are 'privatized', and governmnet expenditure halted. Mainly because the West can't afford to pay fpr third World products in real money. I think that this is a greater problem, than an off the cuff remark by an English doctor.

[Spiffor]

I actually don't understand the believers that are against abortion out of religious reasons. In the Biblical times, it was customary to give a name to a kid at one month of age. Before that, the baby wasn't considered a person.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
Again, I'd like to point out that IVF is pretty frigging sick in and of itself, though.

Sick or not, most people aren't discussing rationally in this thread.

Logically, Sava does have a point. If a person agrees with late term abortion, there is no ethical difference between that and offing a newborn infant.

For me, I hold that a baby can only be considered a person when it acquires sentience. More precisely, when it starts to have a concept of the self.

[Kuciwalker]

Logically, Sava does have a point. If a person agrees with late term abortion, there is no ethical difference between that and offing a newborn infant.

That wasn't Sava's point - that was the point of someone quoted in the article. Sava just started ranting.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Logically, Sava does have a point. If a person agrees with late term abortion, there is no ethical difference between that and offing a newborn infant.

I'm not so sure about that. The unborn child whatever its age is an extension of the mother and it lives off her ressources. Sure, the newborn still needs to be fed by others, but it's not biologically dependant on a single person.

It's ridiculous for the pro-life crowd to be afraid of the slippery slope thingy. No important politician would dare to support the principle.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Logically, Sava does have a point. If a person agrees with late term abortion, there is no ethical difference between that and offing a newborn infant.

I'm glad you agree with me.

[Elok]

I know it wasn't being disputed, I was just making clear that I don't accept anything related to IVF as grounds for precedent either, in case somebody cared.

Ah, what the heck. I'll pull out the obvious example. How are siamese twins different from fetuses? If I had a brother who used my liver and heart without my permission, am I within my rights to kill him? It's MY BODY, after all. You have no right to tell me what to do with it.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Sick or not, most people aren't discussing rationally in this thread.

Logically, Sava does have a point. If a person agrees with late term abortion, there is no ethical difference between that and offing a newborn infant.

For me, I hold that a baby can only be considered a person when it acquires sentience. More precisely, when it starts to have a concept of the self.

That wasn't Sava's point, that was my point. And the infanticide doctor's point. If you cringe at the idea of killing an infant, then you should feel the same anguish at the thought of a late term abortion.

I believe I've seen evidence that points to children developing a concept of self in the womb. They discover their arms and legs, investigate them, etc. They know curiousity, fear, pain. I saw a video (though I shielded my eyes at times) that showed inside the womb during an abortion. The child recoiled from the instrument, and opened its mouth in a silent scream. Doctors who preformed abortions changed their position once they saw that video and confirmed the child very much is aware.

[OzzyKP]

Excellent example Elok.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
Ah, what the heck. I'll pull out the obvious example. How are siamese twins different from fetuses? If I had a brother who used my liver and heart without my permission, am I within my rights to kill him? It's MY BODY, after all.

The only problem with your example is your brother can lay the same claim to the body. You simply has no precedence over him.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
They discover their arms and legs, investigate them, etc. They know curiousity, fear, pain.

A lot of animals do that.

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I saw a video (though I shielded my eyes at times) that showed inside the womb during an abortion. The child recoiled from the instrument, and opened its mouth in a silent scream. Doctors who preformed abortions changed their position once they saw that video and confirmed the child very much is aware.

No, that doesn't hold. Even an amoeba recoils away from certain stimuli. Moving away from pain and towards food/water are extremely old survival responses.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
The child recoiled from the instrument, and opened its mouth in a silent scream. Doctors who preformed abortions changed their position once they saw that video and confirmed the child very much is aware.

I have heard this story before, and I am pretty sure it has been thoroughly debunked as fanaticist fantasy.

Although I do not know in which exact way I will propose the following.

You don't present the reader with any useful information, such as the age of the fetus. The condition of the pregnant woman. Nor is information on the alleged scientist who conducted (or not?) and INTERPRETED the observation given. The fact that it is an interpretation is extremely important.

1) The man presenting this purported evidence was not neutral.
2)The recoil from the instrument might just as well have been the natural movement of the body caused by manipulation of the fluid in the womb, or pressure on the patients stomach, or a shifting in the patients body. This is in fact the most likely. There is no clear casuse and effect, which cannot be falsified.
3)The 'silent scream' of course evokes an emotional response, is meant to in fact. How can it by the very fact that the fetus opened its mouth be deducted that the fetus was experiencing pain? In order to do that electrodes would have been attached to its central nerve system and brain to see if there was a response.
If it was not a coincident, then the event might be explained as pure reflective reaction with no conscious motivation behind it. Or it happened by mere chance.
4) Most damning of all there has not been a repeat of this observation through carefully conducted experiments which have shown the same thing. In order to verify something it must be experimnented on several times.
Again there is no clear cause and effect which cannot be falsified. In fact nothing has been verified in the first instance.
5) the supposed doctors who are now converts are either idiots or should be sent back to med-school, since they clearly have no understanding, or even critical sense.

I would say that as science this 'evidence' fails abysmally.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Monk
I'm not so sure about that. The unborn child whatever its age is an extension of the mother and it lives off her ressources. Sure, the newborn still needs to be fed by others, but it's not biologically dependant on a single person.

That only holds if your main argument is the "parasite" one. I only use it in a backup role.

[Jon Miller]

you know why they do what they do in partial birth abortions?

it is because the child would survive if they didn't

they are just monstrous

yet I seem to recall you supporting them Sava

with the same arguments

UJon Miller

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
For me, I hold that a baby can only be considered a person when it acquires sentience. More precisely, when it starts to have a concept of the self.

Out of curiosity, when does that happen? Would you be OK with killing the child anytime before that point?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The only problem with your example is your brother can lay the same claim to the body. You simply has no precedence over him.

And the fetus can't? Hey, it's using those organs too! So it can't think? Suppose my siamese twin had severe head trauma? The only genuine distinction left is relative age. Brother A was there first, and therefore has license to kill his conjoined twin? Fuzzy at best.

[Heresson]

That was exactly my point what is inside there; there's no bigg difference between a child that passed the magical gate of vagina and the one who yet did not.

[Ben Kenobi]

Certainly you know that, whatever you call that thing that gets implanted, it is not a child.

Sloppy terminology?

I have been entirely consistent in conception as the standard for personhood.

Why should it matter, if the child is conceived outside of the womb, or inside? It is just a difference in location.

Now, what would you call the embryo, outside the womb? A dog, a cat, what would she be?

[Ben Kenobi]

Elok:

That's a splendid rebuttal of the concert violinist. I've not seen that one before.

[Az]

''People who think there is a difference between infanticide and late abortion have to ask the question: What has happened to the fetus in the time it takes to pass down the birth canal and into the world which changes its moral status? I don't think anything has happened in that time," he said, according to the paper.

I don't know about is this source real or not, but to this statement.

[Heresson]

Exactly

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It's an embryo. If it was placed in front of you at the dinner table you'd probably assume it had fallen out of a vol-au-vent, and eat it.

Someone's going to suggest it should have the vote soon.

[Ben Kenobi]

Someone's going to suggest it should have the vote soon.

Right, and 16 year old teens cannot vote either. Not everyone who is a person can vote.

[Heresson]

There's a big difference between an embryo and a 8/9 month baby.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Right, and 16 year old teens cannot vote either. Not everyone who is a person can vote.

You're disenfranchising millions. What kind of tyrant are you, denying people a voice in political decisions?

[Heresson]

A lot of animals do that.

And we do not kill animals unless we want their meat (and it only applies to non-vegetarians), skin or whatever, do we?

[Elok]

I realize I'm nitpicking here, but if an embryo were placed on the table in front of me, I wouldn't even be able to see it, let alone eat it.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're disenfranchising millions. What kind of tyrant are you, denying people a voice in political decisions?

You're right. I do have a closet fascist fetish.