No "moral right to life"?
Aided by Rick Santorum’s over-heated rhetoric, the concept of infanticide (I’m against it, by the way) has been hot in the marketplace of ideas lately.
A group of medical ethicists at Oxford made headlines by arguing that parents ought to have the option of killing their newborns because they are “morally irrelevant” and thus ending their lives is no different from abortion. After some recent examples of the press mangling the real message of scholarly papers, I was dubious about the news reports, but son of a gun, that’s what these ethicists wrote.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was authored by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, who argue,
“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,”and thus “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.” It is “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense,” so
what the ethicists call “after-birth abortion” ( a.k.a. “killing a newborn infant” ) “should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
This argument is not entirely new, and it is actually a logical, if disturbing, extension of other pro-abortion arguments. I have a bioethics book in front of me that has an entire chapter exploring various arguments that newborns are less-than-human lives. American ethicist Peter Singer made himself both famous and infamous several years ago by pointing out that the distinction between late-term abortions and “after birth” killings was artificial. He’s right. Most would agree, however, that this just seals the argument against late-term abortions. Nonetheless, the opinion of the Oxford ethicists contributes to the debate by getting to the core of the issue. Apparently they are now getting death threats…for doing their jobs.
The interesting question is, does Barack Obama agree with them? During the Arizona GOP candidates debate, Newt Gingrich claimed that in 2008 “not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide.” This is Newt talking, so hyperbole is to be assumed, but he’s not as wrong as you might think….or hope. CNN did a “fact check” on Newt, and unlike most such exercises, it fairly checked the facts rather than try to rebut a politician’ s statement that the journalist happens to disagree with, which is the usual practice. CNN:
“… born alive” bills …were brought up in the Illinois Legislature in 2001, 2002, and 2003 when Obama was a state senator. The intent of the legislation was to protect any infant who survived a botched abortion by requiring the doctor to give life-saving care. In part, the bill said “a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.”
Then-state Sen. Obama opposed the legislation because he said it would undermine the legal protections given to abortions under Roe v. Wade.
On the state Senate floor, Obama said he believed courts would eventually overturn the legislation since it would “essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child.” He added that Illinois already had a 1975 state law that protected the life of an infant that survived a botched abortion, if doctors determined the infant could survive. When the legislation came up for a vote in 2001 and 2002, Obama once voted “present” — essentially a non-vote — and once voted against it.
In 2002, Congress was also writing a “Born Alive” bill. Obama said several times he would support that version of the bill because it contained a clause that would protect the legal standing of Roe v. Wade. Opponents of abortion rights, such as the National Right to Life Committee, challenged his explanation, saying the 2003 version of the Illinois law contained language virtually identical to the federal law, so by his own logic he should have supported it. He didn’t.
You can reach your own conclusions. Mine: Obama did in fact vote against a measure making it illegal to kill or allow a newborn to die if it was delivered alive due to a botched abortion. That’s not voting to legalize infanticide; it was a vote against a measure to make a particular type of infanticide (that does occur) specifically illegal. Personally, I find Obama’s reasoning disingenuous: legislatures often make specific acts illegal that could be covered by existing legislation in order to make a moral and ethical statement. His vote could be interpreted as choosing to protect Roe v. Wade from a (far-fetched) slippery slope demise rather than protect newborns, and I agree with Newt that this was an issue that the news media should have pressed in the 2008 campaign. The vote is troubling, and as the CNN writer suggests, inconsistent with his position as U.S. Senator.
But Barack Obama never voted to legalize infanticide.
[Thanks to Blameblakeart for the tip]
Ethics Alarms 
Infanticide occurs still in many countries and a majority of the infants killed are girls. It’s sad, but I’m sure these families have their cultural reasons. I don’t think we’ll see an end to it any time soon. Interesting article, by the way. It certainly makes people think.
American ethicist Peter Singer made himself both famous and infamous several years ago by pointing out that the distinction between late-term abortions and “after birth” killings was artificial. He’s right. Most would agree, however, that this just seals the argument against late-term abortions.
Citation needed for bolded comment.
I’d also argue that by Singer’s logic, the difference between executing a murderer and killing you in cold blood is artificial.
Moving past that, I can’t agree with your arguments. Just because politicians tend to grandstand doesn’t mean that not grandstanding is disingenuous. Without that assumption, your points fall apart.
The position of this bill was both morally repugnant and unnecessary. It’s demogoguery, pure and simple. I’d proudly vote against it.
I also find your linking of Obama to this topic ridiculous and unsupported by the existing evidence. There’s a far cry morally between completing an abortion after accidental birth and killing an already existing infant. Next you’re going to call it humanicide to respect a DNR request.
1. If the infant is born alive, it’s born alive. Your argument is indefensible logically and ethically. What difference does it make why the infant is alive?
2. Why would I need a citation for a “most would agree” statement? You want a poll? I think most would agree. I think it’s obvious..if you accept Singer’s assumptions. Many, and maybe even most, don’t. You want a citation for that too?
3. What do you mean the link to Obama isn’t supported? The bill involved exactly the issue the post is about, and Obama voted the same way the researchers would have. What more link would you have?
4. How is a bill saying that nurses can’t legally bash in the brains of babies delivered live after a botched abortion “morally repugnant”?
1. Really? Reasons don’t matter? Got it. If a person is killed, they’re killed. Why does it matter why they were killed? If executing convicted murderers is ethically okay, then killing someone for being bald is ethically okay.
2. “Most would agree [X]” is a statement of fact, not an opinion. You claim it was an opinion, all it says is “I think [X]”, but in that case it’s not only an appeal to popularity, it’s an appeal to made up popularity.
3. The bill absolutely was not the same thing as the researchers were talking about. The bill involved the attempt to abort, and the research doesn’t. Intent matters, or can I kill you right now?
4. Ugh, ugh, ugh. Way to use inflammatory language and also completely misrepresent the bill. The bill actually required the medical staff to do everything in their power to keep the failed abortion alive, and the comment about bashing the brains of babies is unwarranted. Let the medical community decide what is a medically valid way of performing a task.
What’s morally repugnant is saying that if Doctor X screws up (or didn’t screw up, but something unanticipated occurrs) during a procedure, this cannot be fixed, not because it actually can’t be fixed, but because we tell them you can’t do it. Why? Because we don’t like procedure X to begin with. It’s trying to sneak limitations onto a right through a backdoor. I can’t come up with a valid reason that someone could support this bill but oppose late term abortions.
The reason for someone’s life being saved does not change their status as living. Your first statement in a non sequitur in context. The fact that you can make it shows why the Illinois bill was necessary: some people really think that if an unborn child was “chosen” to die, it should still be killable legally even after it’s born. If that’s not what you’re arguing, enlighten me.
Your last paragraph is atypically dishonest and illogical. We say an unintended birth can’t be “fixed”, because after a baby is born alive, it has all rights to life under the law. We say it, because killing babies is murder, whether you “like the procedure” or not.
And may I add: “Duh.”
The reason for someone’s life being saved does not change their status as living.
I didn’t say it did. The reason somebody wants to kill you doesn’t change your status as living either.
Also, it’s not “someone”‘s life being saved, it’s a fetus being birthed. Watch your language. You’re changing the situation.
Your first statement in a non sequitur in context.
Please explain. I think my statement was a parallel situation.
The fact that you can make it shows why the Illinois bill was necessary: some people really think that if an unborn child was “chosen” to die, it should still be killable legally even after it’s born.
Your words are begging the question: unborn child, “chosen” to die. I do think that if you intend an abortion and actually go to get an abortion, but something goes wrong during the procedure, you should be able to follow through with your plan as is reasonable. If you, at mid-abortion birth, decided to take the result home, killing it would then be unreasonable. Intent matters.
We say an unintended birth can’t be “fixed”, because after a baby is born alive, it has all rights to life under the law.
No, that’s what the bill was trying to say. It’s also irrelevant, because a law says X generally does not mean the law is sound when it comes to any specific situation.
We say it, because killing babies is murder, whether you “like the procedure” or not.
Circular argument. Why is this a baby and not a partially aborted fetus?
“Also, it’s not “someone”‘s life being saved, it’s a fetus being birthed. Watch your language. You’re changing the situation.”
It’s also an infant – a child – being born, and you’re trying to control the situation by controlling the language. Your tactic is to avoid using words which humanize the life being taken. If it’s not a ‘person’, if it’s not ‘someone’, then you can safely conclude, with a clear conscience, no harm has been done. However, should you let the terminology waver, then what?
Watch your language, indeed.
Eventually we’ll be asked to accept 2 year olds being euthanized and tgt will be at the forefront defending it as well. After all,it wasn’t that long ago that the ethical consensus was that killing a fully formed “fetus” was wrong.
Eventually we’ll be asked to accept 2 year olds being euthanized and tgt will be at the forefront defending it as well.
If you’d paid attention to my arguments, you couldn’t possibly think that.
After all,it wasn’t that long ago that the ethical consensus was that killing a fully formed “fetus” was wrong.
Not too long ago, the ethical consensus was that blacks were less human than whites. Just because something is consensus doesn’t mean it is valid. By your slippery slope object, eventually we’ll be asked to accept that whites should be subservient to blacks.
In both cases, the ethics were based on invalid data. In both cases we have more valid data now, and the ethical opinion should move to match the data. If you’re suggesting that the ethics will move so that euthanizing 2 year olds is acceptable, you’re suggesting that we will have evidence to support that position.
“Not too long ago, the ethical consensus was that blacks were less human than whites. ”
Maybe I should have said the moral consensus. Biblical morality would dictate otherwise and cannot be twisted to mean different things to different people.
Biblical morality […] cannot be twisted to mean different things to different people.
That’s hilarious. I don’t know of 2 people who believe in identical biblical morality. Just look at you and SMP. We’ve been over this repeatedly.
It’s also an infant – a child – being born, and you’re trying to control the situation by controlling the language.
No. I’m trying to keep Jack from begging the question.
Your tactic is to avoid using words which humanize the life being taken. If it’s not a ‘person’, if it’s not ‘someone’, then you can safely conclude, with a clear conscience, no harm has been done. However, should you let the terminology waver, then what?
If you can defend the language being used, do so. The burden of proof is on the person using the humanizing language.
I might accept the burden of proof if, for instance, we were discussing animals rights, where the subjects are factually non-human. However, seeing as the subjects of abortion and infanticide are factually human, the burden of proof should be on those insisting instead upon clinical terms.
Human rights were originally based on God’s will. Most of us have gone past that definition, and have been based on such things as suffering and intelligence. Just birthed fetuses fail on the intelligence tests, so it really is up to you.
So do the Kardashians. I hardly think that’s a justification for murder. At least we know the new-born child (“just-birthed” fetus”? Honestly? Welcome to the shameless misleading euphemism Hall of Fame! Find me any reputable souce that refers to a live-birth baby as a “fetus.” Give us a break.) will become much smarter over time, something that is clearly not true of Kloe, Kim and Kourtney.
Jack, you equivocated on the word intelligence, and then begged the question with the word murder.
As for my unusal language, that’s intentional, but it’s not shameless or intentionally misleading. The language that is common tends to have other connotations. If I say baby, people assume full human rights. I’m trying to avoid that begging the question. How about we make up a new word: “storp.”
A “storp” is the result of a failed abortion. No connotations either way and not at all misleading.
So where is it going to end? Why don’t we just legalize murder in general? This is the slippery slope we embarked on after roe v. wade. Life is just some abstract idea to be defined by academic elites now.
Was this actually in reply to me? I don’t see how it rationally relates to anything I said.
It relates to EVERYTHING you’ve said.
What difference does it make why the infant is alive?
One reason is the question of quality of life. If doctors are legally required to do everything possible to preserve the life of a child that was born with severe brain damage or birth defects as a consequence of attempted abortion, it could be that that doctor is being made to preserve a life that will be consumed by suffering or defined by a lack of consciousness from its first moments.
Peter Singer didn’t justify infanticide purely on the basis of a recognized false distinction between late-term abortions and post-birth killing. His key hypotheticals dealt with children who were born with debilitating diseases such as spina bifida, and he made a complex utilitarian argument to the effect that it might be preferable to kill a child that will experience lifelong suffering if its death would result in another child being born in its place who would be free of the disease and thus capable of a happy life.
Singer didn’t say “all abortion’s okay; therefore all infanticide’s okay,” even if Giubilini and Minerva now have said just that.
‘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.”
Humans are born in a less mature state than some mammals, they certainly can’t stand or walk immediately like cows, horses or deer. They don’t do a great job of eating on their own for many months, either. It’s simply that if to reach a state of physical development on par with a cow or a horse, a human baby would grow to be far too large to gestate in the mother’s body. So, we are born with “potential” to become adults, but in a state that necessitates a lot of parental involvement. Is our basic biological design to be held against us, to be used as an excuse to extinguish new life? Once a baby is born, breathes air, and for the first time sees his/her parents, and becomes aware of the outside world, it is very different from a fetus in it’s new awareness. Infanticide should never be condoned.
Your logic doesn’t work.
Once a baby is born, breathes air, and for the first time sees his/her parents, and becomes aware of the outside world, it is very different from a fetus in it’s new awareness.
What’s actually different in it’s awareness? It has different stimuli, but not any different awareness. Also, by your logic, we can kill babies that are blind, on ventilators, or are just dumb.
Is our basic biological design to be held against us, to be used as an excuse to extinguish new life?
This is comical. Based on your example, this is a better question: is our basic biological design to be held against us, to be used as an excuse to require not fully formed life to be treated like fully formed life?
Meaning exactly what? Even in the womb, babies respond to external stimuli during early gestation. You’re trying to turn Crella’s remarks around into areas she never suggested. Your verbal acrobatics in defending infanticide are what’s comical, TGT. Or would be, if they weren’t also repulsive.
Even in the womb, babies respond to external stimuli during early gestation.
If anything, that cuts further against Crella.
You’re trying to turn Crella’s remarks around into areas she never suggested.
I’m not doing anything improper. She gave reasons that X is different than Y. One of those differences I attacked as false (awareness). The others I pointed out weren’t specific to X and Y, and pointed out examples of Y that have the characteristics of X. If Crella believes that blind babies on ventilators (like my cousin was) should be treated like fetuses and not like babies, then she doesn’t have a problem. If, on the other hand, she doesn’t like this conclusion, then it shows her arguments from the rationalizations I believe they are.
And now you do it again!!
Ugh. Talking about what someone’s argument actually means is not improper. No, Crella didn’t explicitly say what I said, but her remarks directly imply what I said. She can’t have what she said and deny what I said at the same time. This is basic logic.
If you want to deny basic logic, I’ll have to go back to boilerplate in response to you.
I’ve been looking forward to this post since I saw Popehat’s treatment of the topic yesterday.
Something critical was aluded to in the post, but has been (and will continue to be) exemplified by the comments: ethics and logic are not the same thing, nor can society treat them as mutually exclusive. People use both to try to win arguments.
I’ll concede (like Jack) that Giubilini et. al. probably have a logical argument. Logical in the strict definiton that if one accepts their premises, their conclusion must follow. But, and it’s a huge ‘but,’ their conclusion is ethically repugnant. So much so that those who defend it solely on account of the logic sound more than a bit unhinged–dare I say they sound like fanatics to whom the mere mechanics of logic have become almost a religion? Those staunch logicians seem in this case, to me at least, to be accepting at least one seriously ethically-flawed premise: the authors’ definition of a “moral right to life.”
Am I the only one bemused by the interplay of ethics, logic, and “morality” in this scenario?
So much so that those who defend it solely on account of the logic sound more than a bit unhinged–dare I say they sound like fanatics to whom the mere mechanics of logic have become almost a religion?
This is stupid. The issue is with the premises, not with the reliance on logic. relying on logic is not at all like religion (which relies on denial of logic).
Let me try to be clearer by asking two questions. My thoughts always see so much stronger in my head than when they are put out for public consumption.
1) Can an abhorrent conclusion invalidate a strictly logically sound argument (as this “after-birth abortion” paper seems to be)? I think yes, because the premises ought to be evaluated both normatively and objectively.
2) Can an ethical (or ethical sounding) argument be invalidated by bad logic? I also think yes, and I think we see this more often. The problem is, it’s just so disatisfying.
1) That’s the idea behind proof by contradiction. In the ethics world it’s a little more complicated, but such a result says that either one of our premises needs to be tweaked, or we need to determine why we think the conclusion is abhorrent.
I think that normally when we reach abhorrent conclusions from supposedly sound reasoning, the issue is our reasoning was not actually sound.
2) Most definitely. Bad arguments are bad arguments, even if we like their results.
Funny how you can say things like this while, concurrently, excluding yourself from the equation.
I don’t exclude myself.
Do too!
Example please. I’m really getting tired of these general attacks that have no evidence.
If you think an argument is “strictly logically sound” and that its conclusion is abhorrent, I’d have to guess that either your sense of abhorrence was wrong or that your perception of strict logical soundness is flawed. You have to either question your intuition or come up with some explanation for why the argument is wrong. You can’t just reject the conclusion because it doesn’t sit right.
But I think that with your reference to normative and objective evaluation you’re trying to get at the famous problem of trying to derive an “ought” from an “is.” True, “infanticide is functionally similar to abortion” does not translate to “infanticide is morally equivalent to abortion,” but if someone makes a separate, valid argument for that moral equivalence, the burden of proof rests on you if you want to prove it wrong.
but if someone makes a separate, valid argument for that moral equivalence, the burden of proof rests on you if you want to prove it wrong.
Burden of proof rests on the person changing natural state. the natural state of conduct is neither ethical nor unethical, so in general the burden of proof is on the person arguing something shouldn’t be done or something should be done.
If someone’s making an argument for something, they normally have the burden of proof, but if what they’re making the argument for is the natural state (like here), then the burden of proof is on the opposer.
I see your point, but all I’m saying here is that if one side of the discussion makes an effective, logically sound argument, the responsibility shifts to his opponent, and that responsibility can’t be dispelled by saying “we shouldn’t listen to logic in this case.”
I had assumed that Jim, you, and I were talking about a hypothetical situation in which the burden of proof had already been carried fully by the person arguing for acceptance of infanticide.
My apologies. I understood what you were assuming but it took me a second. I meant to be clarifying what you said to forestall the knee jerk “no, the burden of proof is on you!” argument.
Once it’s born alive, Constitutional protections kick in, no matter the age, frankly. It’s not a Constitutional argument when parents of early preemies decide to stop trying to save the baby when the docs run out of options or things aren’t working. But if the mother is having an abortion and then ends up with a 22-week preemie instead of it, I’m thinking the mom isn’t going to be able to make very many coherent decisions regarding next steps. I know, it’s kinda random, but I’m trying to throw a different light on the potential need for a bill, as seen by the legislators. Personally, though, I’m thinking those docs who swore to DO NO HARM don’t need a law to try and save a tiny human that’s suddenly alive in their hands. The question is what CAN they do in that situation without a really good NICU on hand.
Once it’s born alive, Constitutional protections kick in, no matter the age, frankly.
Why? And what does that have to do with the ethics of the situation? The constitution isn’t necessarily perfect.
Why not?
That’s not on me to show.
It also doesn’t matter to this discussion.
Wrong.
Which part is wrong?
(1) That’s it’s not me to show? That’s pretty clear. Becky made a truth claim about the constitution that assumed that failed abortion births are immediately considered children. I just want to see her scholarship on the matter.
(2) That it’s irrelevant? That’s also obvious. What the constitution says does not decide what is morally correct.
No, it’s your ethics that are wrong, TGT. Your cold-blooded, twisted values that seem to give you the right to condemn innocent human life based on an amorphous “scientific” basis. I’ve seen too much of that in the preceding century from regimes whose brutalities defy description. Whenever such tyrants took over, too, one of their first actions was to suppress and intimidate any institution that expounded values on the sanctity of human life and for the family and its children. That inevitably meant the Church. When despots can dictate this things based on the expediency of the moment- or on their own innate depravity- anything can happen… and all of it bad.
Based on your argument here, your previous comment was completely irrelevant to the comment I made. You weren’t actually saying anything about me being wrong on my comments about the constitution.
As for your argument here, it doesn’t stand up. You beg the question to call me a monster. You then attempt to bring all science into question because some people have done bad things and called it science. If you want to use that logic, you have to say that religion can’t be used to support ideas because of people like Torquemada.
Ah! So Torquemada is your icon of Christianity. That explains a lot. But I’d wager that even he would have thought twice about condoning the practices that you do. BTW: I didn’t call you a monster. I merely suggest that you don’t recognize it when you see it.
I never suggested such. I was applying your argument about science to Christianity, to show how ridiculous your argument against science was.
To be consistent, if you are going to reject science because some people have done bad with it, then you also have to reject Christianity because some people have done bad with it.
I don’t reject Christianity because some people have done bad with it.
THIS . . . IS . . . SPARRRRRTAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!
–Dwayne
I have argued that what people are really advocating is a Matria Potestas. It isn’t about abortion or about whether or not the child is ‘alive’, it is about Matria Potestas, the mother’s power. In Rome, children were the property of their father. He had the power of life or death over them (Patria Potestas), even into adulthood (in theory).
Children born in the third trimester have good survival rates these days, so any abortion performed at this time is essentially the same as an abortion performed after labor has started. The only difference between such fetuses and a baby is the separation from the mother. The argument for ‘abortion rights’ is not an argument about whether or not the child is ‘alive’ it is an argument about whether the fetus is the property of the mother. You don’t hear a lot of arguments allowing the father to force an abortion or stop an abortion. That fetus is the property of the mother only and the mother holds the power of life and death. The only debate is when this power is ceded and when the fetus or child ceases to be property and becomes a person. Any definition of this time that passes beyond the time that they can survive separate from the mother is completely arbitrary. You can talk about developmental phases all you want, but certain groups of scientists claim that our brain doesn’t fully develop until we are 25 or so. So, any definition of the change the status from property to person that is from the beginning of the third trimester of gestation to 25 years after birth is purely arbitrary. Argue all you want, but it doesn’t matter. Any line drawn in this period is drawn according to an arbitrary criterion (doesn’t need ICU, can’t feed self, can’t understand Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity).
…and as the technology of the ICU develops into “Brave New World” like artificial wombs and finally meets up with invitro fertilization, this debate will get really interesting.
Like the ultimate futility of trying to derive a rational basis for religious faith on God living in the gaps of our scientific knowledge, the gaps will continually narrow and one must come up with a fundamentally different way, than viability, of deriving a satisfactory answer.
Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan wrote an essay on this topic years ago and I think it applies here since I see so many of the same arguments they explored:
http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
“Next you’re going to call it humanicide to respect a DNR request.”
Speaking from my place, standing on some other aspect of the which-humans-are-persons-question slippery slope – or perhaps rather, speaking from a somewhat older point in the apparently ever-expanding continuum that is absolutist(/absurdist) abortionism’s human-objectification scale – my reaction to this post of Jack’s is a projection, as is also that last sentence of tgt’s first post here of today (quoted above):
Next, someone is going to call it euthanasia, to invalidate, overrule, and pre-empt many humans’ previously legitimized and ligitimate advanced directives – using a “new, improved” personhood definition, derived from re-definitions and rationalizations that include “properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual,” and “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” (diligently reasoned, and flawlessly vouchsafed according to ethically perfected human civilizations’ governments, of course [that is sarcasm]).
I’m reminded of a mock slogan the Three Stooges used in one of their bits (I believe Curly filled in the final profound part): “One For All! All For One! (And Every Man For Himself!)”
” There’s a far cry morally between completing an abortion after accidental birth and killing an already existing infant. ”
Yeah. Don’t you know it’s ok to kill a full term baby 5 minutes before while still in the womb or 5 minutes after it’s born? What difference does it make morally whether it was a botched abortion or not?
Say we’ve sentenced someone to death, and the hanging doesn’t break the guys neck (the firing squad misses the heart/head, the electric chair only gives of 20 volts, the injection isn’t lethal enough, etc…). By your argument, it is now wrong to continue trying to kill the person.
Consider pre-birth as a trial. The defendent is either given the death penalty or not. If they’re not given death, we can’t kill them. If they are given death, a botched procedure should require us to keep them alive.
Used to be if someone was hung and the rope broke that person was allowed to live. Are you comparing a “fetus” to a cold blooded killer whose punishment is death? What crime did the baby commit?
Used to be if someone was hung and the rope broke that person was allowed to live.
That was from superstitious nonsense.
Are you comparing a “fetus” to a cold blooded killer whose punishment is death? What crime did the baby commit?
Ugh. No.
I’m showing the difference between a failed abortion and an intentional birth by comparing that difference to the difference between someone given the death penalty (that was botched) and someone that was not.
the difference is the baby doesn’t deserve to die.
That is irrelevant. Why does the failed abortion birth have more right to life than the pre-abortion fetus that’s scheduled for abortion?
Easy. The argument for abortion is that a woman should have complete control over her own body. Once a child is born and living on its own, it is no longer part of the woman’s body, and no double-talk or rationalizations can make it so. It is an individual, and society has an independent interest in protecting it; a judge could order a guardian ad litem, and if you were around, I guess it would have to, lest you use the child for skeet-shooting practice.
The train has left the station, the chicken has fled the coop, the bird has left the nest. Can’t unbreak the egg, can’t untell the story, can’t unrun the race, can’t turn the baby back into a abortion fodder. A pity. No more “choice.” The whole basis for legally-sanctioned killing is done and gone. Now its unequivocal murder. Before the birth, it was just legalized murder. (I’m quoting Daniel Patrick Moynihan in that last statement.)
It is an individual, and society has an independent interest in protecting it.
Why?
No more “choice.” The whole basis for legally-sanctioned killing is done and gone. Now its unequivocal murder. Before the birth, it was just legalized murder. (I’m quoting Daniel Patrick Moynihan in that last statement.)
You’re still begging the question.
Anyway, I understand the overall point you’re making, but I’m uncomfortable with it. (1) Who’s responsible for taking care of this child? Isn’t this an unnecessary burden on the state? (2) I see a slippery slope argument here. Say a doctor is performing a late term abortion. What is their ethical duty? To perform it properly? To make sure they fail so the result is a protected child?
Jack said it better than I could. And I agree with Daniel Patrick Moynihan. You should know my position by now,tgt. Both the fetus in the womb and the baby out of the womb deserve to live.
Because the abortion was successful. The pregnancy was cancelled. Aborted. Just because the result was a living baby instead of a dead fetus, doesn’t negate the success of a terminated pregnancy, which the woman has a right to. Once born, there’s no medical justification for doing further harm to the child, right?
Or moral, ethical, legal, human or other justification. The hospital, of course, has a pragmatic justification: it will get its pants sued off of it in a “wrongful life” suit. And this is why the law in Illinois was necessary, and why Obama’s opposition to it was either a) disingenuous b) brutal or c) naive.
The illinois law was necessary because it rehashed something that was already illegal. Demogoguery. That’s all it was.
Many laws, and many regulations, target specific varieties of crimes already forbidden on the books that are flying under the radar, and the practice of quietly killing babies who survive abortion is a reality in hospitals. The same with so-called “monsters.” It is an institutionalized practice that legislative acknowledgement helps stem. Without decding whether I think such a law is necessary or wise, I can say unequivocally that it is more than demagoguery. It addresses a real phenomenon.
It is? Evidence, please?
There was one person I know of who did this sort of thing regularly in Pennsylvania, and he’s now in prison. (And he ran an independent clinic that the National Abortion Federation refused to accept into their organization; he didn’t have a hospital affiliation.)
But I’m not aware of any evidence that this is a common practice, let alone one that is a reality in hospitals. Obviously, maybe it is a common practice and I just don’t know, so if you have any supporting links from responsible sources I’d be interested.
There was no harm done to a child. Why do I argue with people who beg the question?
I used “child” because I wanted to avoid your terms “Fetus” and “Baby”. Child denotes the relationship, not the legal state. So, when I say harm was done to the child, it’s accurate. Whether you consider the child to be a fetus or a baby, is up to you.
Rather than attack my points, you attack the words that describe the concepts, to distract from the issue. Whatever is being discussed, whether it’s people, dogs, fish… Gestation until birth is the natural state. When someone or something interferes with the gestation, that is harm.
I’m not trying to distract from the issues. I’m calling people out when they beg the question. When there’s such a fatal flaw in your logic, your argument is invalid.
Do you know what else is a natural state? Eating young. Therefore, anyone who interferes with me eating my young is doing harm.
Natural state is complete BS. Go back to the previous abortion thread to see that dismantled.
Humans eating their young is a natural state? This is how you claim to dismantle arguments? With no interference, no interaction with society, humans will eat their young? That’s natural state? What question did I beg? You say it over and over like it’s a religious mantra, yet I have no clue what the hell you’re talking about. Rather than post sound bites, further the discussion. You know I’m willing to learn, we’ve had discussions that have been very helpful to me. But you are failing here miserably. You aren’t up to your usual par and it’s sad.
Humans eating their young is a natural state? This is how you claim to dismantle arguments? With no interference, no interaction with society, humans will eat their young? That’s natural state?
I didn’t say that. Eating young is a natural thing for adults to do in general. It still happens with some animals. That doesn’t mean that interfering with this process is bad. The dismantles was done in the referenced thread, not here. Can you not read? In short, “natural state”, in the context you are using, doesn’t mean anything. The natural state for an uncared for baby is death. The natural state for a fertilized egg is nothing. The natural state argument makes false assumptions. It’s useless.
What question did I beg? You say it over and over like it’s a religious mantra, yet I have no clue what the hell you’re talking about.
You keep referring to the object as baby, child, etc, while making the exact value judgments that you’re supposed to be defending. This is a good example:
“Once born, there’s no medical justification for doing further harm to the child, right?”
This assumes that (1) this is violating human rights (harm to a child), and (2) this “child” has already been harmed. You have already answered your question by redefining the object and by claiming the actions are bad on their own.
You might as well be referring to the bible as “the word of god” when trying to explain why we should believe God wrote the bible.
Rather than post sound bites, further the discussion. You know I’m willing to learn, we’ve had discussions that have been very helpful to me. But you are failing here miserably. You aren’t up to your usual par and it’s sad.
Rather than post sound bites, further the discussion. You know I’m willing to learn, we’ve had discussions that have been very helpful to me. But you are failing here miserably. You aren’t up to your usual par and it’s sad.
I haven’t been intending to post soundbites, but how many times should I be required to explain the exact same begging the question? I’ve been futhering the discussion when I can, but when the opposition retreats back to debunked arguments, there’s nothing I can do to further it. The ball’s in their court to come up with something new.
Irrelevant?? The basis of comparison lies in the worth of human life from the very onset. You’re trying to redefine the argument again. “Scheduled for abortion”? That’s still a sentence of death without trial. And you would extend this to include a born baby that managed to survive attempted murder. By this “logic”, it’s also a short step to classifying ALL babies as post-abortion fetuses, since all babies can be subject to this dictate, whether or not the killing was attempted. Your attempt to draw a moral analogy between an innocent baby and a condemned criminal would be stunning, had I not seen such thoughts extended before. This is where Godless decadence leads.
Irrelevant?? The basis of comparison lies in the worth of human life from the very onset.
Which is irrelevant to this specific point.
You’re trying to redefine the argument again. “Scheduled for abortion”? That’s still a sentence of death without trial.
As I explained, the parents (who are entrusted with making the decision to abort or not) made the decision just like the jury (entrusted with the determination to put to death) made the decision. Your complaint was already brought up by Jack and shown to be wanting.
By this “logic”, it’s also a short step to classifying ALL babies as post-abortion fetuses, since all babies can be subject to this dictate, whether or not the killing was attempted.
That only makes sense if we consider people determined innocent by the jury (or determined guilty and given life sentences) post-execution humans. Anyone who called that a short step would be laughed at.
Your attempt to draw a moral analogy between an innocent baby and a condemned criminal would be stunning, had I not seen such thoughts extended before
Yay for more begging the question!
Your concepts of what is “irrelevant” and what is not seem based on your determination of what furthers your outrageous contentions and what doesn’t. The rest of your commentary only confirms my previous post.
What part of my argument for irrelevancy doesn’t hold?
I haven’t confirmed anything from your previous post. Are you begging the question again or ignoring the example as it was set up?
“Biblical morality […] cannot be twisted to mean different things to different people.
That’s hilarious. I don’t know of 2 people who believe in identical biblical morality. Just look at you and SMP. We’ve been over this repeatedly.”
*sigh* Have you seen the 10 Commandments? You shall not steal…you shall not murder…you shall not commit adultery …etc. Unless we’re into situational ethics I don’t see how you can misinterpret those.
P.S. Love your neighbor covers the black white situation.
That isn’t one of the 10 commandments. By your own logic, you can’t use it.
Jesus told us to love our neighbor. Still applies.
Not everyone agrees on the meanings of the 10 commandments, and that’s only a smidgen of biblical morality. Are you claiming that drawing the earth is immoral? The 10 commandments certainly say so: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:”
Also, if you want to go strictly by the 10 commandments, you can’t argue that abortion is immoral or that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
The graven image was made as an object of worship. Not allowed. And I don’t go strictly by the 10 Commandments. I also go by the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
I know. I was pointing out that your comment about misinterpretation about the 10 commandments was silly. I also stand by my comment about the drawing of the earth. It’s not just about worship. Accurately displaying the earth/universe suggests that there is no hell below or heaven above. Those were supposed to be real physical places.
While my statement that no two people have identical morality was a bit strong. If you show me 100 random christians, 95 different sets of beliefs are likely.
For existence, take my father and his brothers. They were all raised Roman Catholic, but now are 1 true Catholic, 1 Catholic in name only, 1 spiritual christian, and 2 born again christians. They all have great knowledge of the bible (start with 12 years of Catholic school, add in 2 with weekly bible study, 1 who has taught religion, and another that spent more than half a decade in the Jesuits) and all use it as the basis for their morality. Not only do they never all generally agree on any specific question, it’s rare that any 2 of them agree on the details or reasoning for any position.
Biblical morality is not a constant. It may be a constant for you and a constant for SMP, but these constants are not the same.
Yes,I muffed it on the “love your neighbor” and the 10 Commandments but Jesus did say the greatest commandments were to love your God with all your mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself.All the Commandments are wrapped up in those two.If you obey those the rest is automatic.As for heaven and hell,the universe is a big place. The heaven above and hell below are most likely metaphors,just like the earth below.
As for Christians disagreeing they will on certain things because some parts of the Bible aren’t clearly understood,especially outside the original languages and even then scholars don’t always agree. But there are basics of which we all agree and that is you must accept Jesus as Savior and Lord to be saved, being the most important. You must believe. God’s idea was to save mankind,not condemn it.
If you obey those the rest is automatic.
It’s doesn’t work that way.
The heaven above and hell below are most likely metaphors,just like the earth below.
Most likely? I thought everything was automatic?
As for Christians disagreeing they will on certain things because some parts of the Bible aren’t clearly understood,especially outside the original languages and even then scholars don’t always agree. But there are basics of which we all agree and that is you must accept Jesus as Savior and Lord to be saved, being the most important. You must believe. God’s idea was to save mankind,not condemn it.
That’s all irrelevant. It doesn’t change that your basic moral code, the absolute you claim exists and that everything necessarily falls from, doesn’t actually exist. It clearly doesn’t work the way you claimed.
When you can’t win on ideas, just fallback to Jesus – just preach. It shows your argument for what it is: empty.
It’s your own comments that are empty, TGT. You’re reduced to nitpicking in order to edge away from the point. It comes down to the fact that, in rejecting God, you have nothing but your own finite intellect
SMP,
You didn’t counter anything I said, so you agree my argument is valid, right?
It’s your own comments that are empty, TGT. You’re reduced to nitpicking in order to edge away from the point.
Again, a general accusation that you don’t support.
It comes down to the fact that, in rejecting God, you have nothing but your own finite intellect
And the problem with this is… what? By outsourcing your ethics to “God”, you don’t even have human intellect to go on.
How does left field look, tgt? Grass cut nicely? That’s your second terrible analogy, although you have another in this thread…I’m not caught up. A condemned criminal has committed a crime. A unborn then born child has committed no crime. The criminal was condemned to die after he had full status as a citizen and human being; after the punishment failed, his status is exactly the same as when he was condemned. Killing him after the first attempt failed is no different in kind from what killing him the first time would have been. (By the way, some courts have ruled that a botched execution constitutes completed punishment, allowing the prisoner to go free. Hasn’t happened for a about 150 years, though. Still, it is a bit flip to call it “superstitious nonsense.” Such rulings accepted a legitimate legal argument that the sentence had been carried out,although without the expected result, and that doing it twice constituted cruel and unusual punishment not anticipated by the applicable statutes.)
Your first analogy, though you may have been half-kidding, was with over-ruling a DNR. Wow. An adult, with full rights as a citizen, signs a legal document declaring his or her own fate, death in the event of a natural demise. Another party over-turns the individual’s decision and control over his own fate,to force him to live is what is usually a decrepit and miserable condition AFTER a full life. You compare that to an unborn child, who is condemned to death by a another human being when the presumption is that a living thing always prefers life to death. Then the status of the unborn changes materially and legally, where it is protected by the laws and against the arbitrary will of others, leading to the invalidation of that death sentence. Unlike the DNR patient, the child has not had the chance to live, did not express the wish to die, and has every reason to want to live.
Other than that, you’re right—they’re identical situations.
How does left field look, tgt? Grass cut nicely? That’s your second terrible analogy, although you have another in this thread…I’m not caught up.
The analogy is on point.
A condemned criminal has committed a crime. A unborn then born child has committed no crime.
That’s irrelevant. A fetus that is scheduled for abortion hasn’t committed a crime either. The parallel is that in both situations, the people entrusted with the responsibility made a fully legal decision and everyone tried to the best of their abilities to carry said decision out.
The criminal was condemned to die after he had full status as a citizen and human being; after the punishment failed, his status is exactly the same as when he was condemned. Killing him after the first attempt failed is no different in kind from what killing him the first time would have been.
So you’re saying that the failed abortion is granted full human status when the abortion fails and birth occurs. Therefore the situations are different. The problem is that the status of the failed abortion is the question we’re trying to answer. You’re begging the question here.
(By the way, some courts have ruled that a botched execution constitutes completed punishment, allowing the prisoner to go free. Hasn’t happened for a about 150 years, though. Still, it is a bit flip to call it “superstitious nonsense.” Such rulings accepted a legitimate legal argument that the sentence had been carried out,although without the expected result, and that doing it twice constituted cruel and unusual punishment not anticipated by the applicable statutes.)
It’s not flip, it’s accurate. It was superstitious nonsense. The idea came about because the thought was that God wanted the punishee to live.
It was then codified into law based on tradition. The ideas of it being cruel and unusual came later, and while I do have some sympathy for them, what’s actually cruel and unusual is the failure to kill, not the kill itself.
Your first analogy, though you may have been half-kidding, was with over-ruling a DNR. Wow. An adult, with full rights as a citizen, signs a legal document declaring his or her own fate, death in the event of a natural demise. Another party over-turns the individual’s decision and control over his own fate,to force him to live is what is usually a decrepit and miserable condition AFTER a full life. You compare that to an unborn child, who is condemned to death by a another human being when the presumption is that a living thing always prefers life to death. Then the status of the unborn changes materially and legally, where it is protected by the laws and against the arbitrary will of others, leading to the invalidation of that death sentence. Unlike the DNR patient, the child has not had the chance to live, did not express the wish to die, and has every reason to want to live.
Other than that, you’re right—they’re identical situations.
I’m not going to bother breaking this down, as you continue to constantly beg the question (like calling a fetus an “unborn child” and implying that is has all the rights of an independent human). Without those assumptions, your argument doesn’t hold water.
It all comes down to this: Is a child’s life worthy of protection under law or not? If not, then the entire basis of what we call “civilization” is rendered null and void. So, too, is the justification for human survival, which civilization exists to enhance. A society that not only slaughters its most valuable members- its children- has sunk into terminal decadency and has forfeited the future. Indeed, it deserves none.
Begging the question. What child?
False conclusions. If we don’t give protection to all, civilization is not rendered null and void. As of this date, we still don’t give everyone equal protection under the law. You actually arguing against giving everyone equal protection.
Utter bunk. We’re talking about children, here. Not philosophical abstracts. I repeat my contention that the protection of children and the survival of the strong family unit are not only moral essentials, but the basis of every civilization worthy of the name. Your contention that everyone doesn’t receive equal protection under law is another of your “straw men”. This is not a discussion of Marxian “social justice”. NO society can provide this all the time, as societies, like the people who comprise it, are imperfect. Only God is perfect. But the ideal must remain and be pursued. The status of children in society is the great yardstick by which they must all be judged.
We’re talking about children, here. Not philosophical abstracts.
No, we’re talking about a partially aborted fetus. By calling it a child, you’ve answered the question of whether or not it should have the rights of a child.
repeat my contention that the protection of children and the survival of the strong family unit are not only moral essentials, but the basis of every civilization worthy of the name.
By your argument, neither Rome nor Greece were worthy of being called civilizations.
Your contention that everyone doesn’t receive equal protection under law is another of your “straw men”.
No. It’s absolutely true.
This is not a discussion of Marxian “social justice”. NO society can provide this all the time, as societies, like the people who comprise it, are imperfect. Only God is perfect. But the ideal must remain and be pursued.
Non sequitur. Also, false. God does not exist.
The status of children in society is the great yardstick by which they must all be judged.
Okay. So late 19th century America sucked, right?
Pure blather, TGT. It’s all based on your worldview that a fetus is not a human life, God does not exist… and, therefore, life is without meaning, anyway. The rest was smoke in the wind.
It’s all based on your worldview that a fetus is not a human life
That’s not a worldview, that’s a conclusions based ont he evidence
God does not exist… and, therefore, life is without meaning, anyway.
Just lie and lie and lie. I have never stated that I believe life doesn’t have meaning. You think that you need God for meaning, but this isn’t true.
Can I assume you have ceded that your argument that equal treatment is necessary for society, which was modified to treatment of our children determines if we are civilized, is BS, as my counter examples to your point went unchallenged?
Your worldview, is one without a Creator. Therefore, by your concept, the Universe is an accident. Therefore, it can have no purpose beyond its mere existence. And neither can you. Your last sentence is entirely incoherent. I seriously fear you’re going nuts, TGT.
Purpose and meaning are not synonyms. I can find meaning without their being an underlying purpose.
My last sentence is a bit wordy and isn’t particularly clear, but it’s not incoherent.
You claimed that we need equal treatment of all for society to work. Later, you “clarified” that you mean that how we treat our children determines what kind of society we have. I attacked that with a period of time considered good, but where we were horrible to children. You did not respond to that comment. My statement was asking if your failure to respond to this thread of the discussion means you are ceding that your argument was wrong.
Purposeless meaning? That’s a new one on me.
I was right. Anyone who can tie sentences in sailor’s knots like that in still claim to have made anything resembling a point of logic is indesputably wacko. Particularly when you try to justify the mass murder of children on the basis of that, in past points in time, children have been treated badly!! That doesn’t take the wind out of my sails, TGT. Sorry! It only proves how threadbare your own are.
These types of debates rarely end well, but nevertheless, I’d like to say that Giubilini and Minerva’s conclusion is only valid if we consider the line they draw to be the one we should take to determine personhood; as seen in Fred’s link to Sagan and Druyan’s essay, a different line could be drawn based on the amount and degree of brain activity. If this argument ends up also implying that we should also be more humane to animals, then well, it might just be a bridge worth crossing.
Pingback: On “After-Birth Abortion” and the “woman? what woman?” argument | Alas, a Blog
I started to write a reply here, but it began to seem more like a blog post than a comment, so I posted it on my blog. (I hope posting this link is okay with you!)
I read your blog and it seems to support my idea of the child being the property of the mother. Your only concrete argument is that as long as the mother has physical possession of the child (by it being inside her), she has the right to kill it. Once it leaves her body and she loses physical possession, she loses that right.
Your higher brain function argument just says that as long as the child doesn’t have fully developed faculties (as you draw the line), it is still OK to kill it. But this is still arbitrary and I will demonstrate why. The survival rate for children born at 28 weeks is over 90%, those born at 25 weeks is 50%. What you are saying is that it is fine to terminate a pregnancy before 28 weeks because the cerebral cortex isn’t functioning to your standards. If the child was born at 26 weeks, though, it isn’t OK to kill it there in the nursery even though it still doesn’t meet your standard of humanity because the mother has lost possession. It is the idea that the fetus is the property of the mother that differentiates the two in your argument.
Your argument seems to be that as long as the mother has possession of the fetus (inside her body) it is OK for her to kill it as long as it doesn’t exceed 28 weeks because then it would be cruel.
Oh don’t bother trying to take offense at the word kill. There is no more doubt that any of the fetuses at these developmental stages are alive any more than there is doubt that a mouse is alive.
I shouldn’t even type anything, but Michael, you’re posts are probably the better ones in this thread. With that said, drawing these arbitrary lines around “what is life” is very possibly the wrong approach to the subject of “acceptable abortion”. An arbitrary line will always be necessary in an “abortion is accepted” society, but it shouldn’t be about when a fetus is life. It should be around “has the woman had enough time to elect an abortion”. 20 weeks is nearly 5 months. What can’t be decided in 5 months? With that said, what developmental marker around 20 weeks can be used to determine eligibility for abortion or not?
What happens if complications arise at 21 weeks. When does the timer count? When she becomes pregnant, or when she learns she’s pregnant. I had a friend on birth control that didn’t know she was pregnant until 3 months in. When does her clock start?
Even if we can agree on a start time for this clock, isn’t this clock artificial? If we agree the reason is okay at 19 weeks, why wouldn’t the same reason be okay at 21 weeks?
There’s no timer. It’s not a “count-down” clock. It’s a threshold.
If you want to view it as a clock, then pay attention to when it starts counting so you have the most amount of time. If you want to be ignorant and blind to the clock and sit on your rights until they expire, that’s your problem. I think everyone has personal rights and choices to make for themselves within the context of responsibility….but, in my opinion, there needs to be a threshold.
If you want to view it as a clock, then pay attention to when it starts counting so you have the most amount of time. If you want to be ignorant and blind to the clock and sit on your rights until they expire, that’s your problem.
So, all women should take daily pregnancy tests? How else can they know that their clock started?
I think everyone has personal rights and choices to make for themselves within the context of responsibility….but, in my opinion, there needs to be a threshold.
Why doesn’t their need to be a threshold? This also dovetails with a previous comment you made:
With that said, what developmental marker around 20 weeks can be used to determine eligibility for abortion or not?
Determining an answer before you have a reason for that answer is dishonest. Here you show that you don’t care about any of the things that could occur at your delineation point. You are upfront in your rationalization, but that doesn’t make what you are doing right.
editting error. Why doesn’t their need to be a threshold? should be Why does there need to be a threshold?
I created a threshold myself for for legal reasons(then decided where to place it for moral reasons), but I’m not sure if a threshold is actually necessary.
So, all women should take daily pregnancy tests? How else can they know that their clock started?
Like I said…it’s a threshold, not a clock. I’m not advocating daily tests, but perhaps you should take one after you miss your 2nd period. Considering conception occurs in week 2, and the 2nd missed cycle would be ~week 8, what can’t be decided in 12 weeks for an observant person or 1 week for a very non-observant person?
…I also don’t think that whatever someone comes up with Developmentally at 20 weeks should be “hard and fast”, but perhaps that’s the first time when “abortion for convenience” gets shut down.
The reason I determine “thresholds” without establishing a need is because I’m advocating for a working system. If people can figure out “the how”, then “the why” may or may not follow, but at least they know what the best options are in advance.
If you can’t figure out “the how”, then why would “the why” matter?
Spoken like a man who has never had a period.
No. Spoken like a man who has ideas. What are yours, or do you just like being an anarchist?
I’m with Danielle on this one. Despite being a man, I’m not stupid enough to think that periods are that regular, or that a women’s life should revolve around them. When your bias is the approved of position, you don’t know you have a bias.
Welcome to the real world, TGT.
Ideas? What ideas? I would have characterized your commentary as a position, not an idea. I am sure you would disagree with that as strongly as I disagree with your characterization of me as an anarchist. It was quite interesting actually. At first, I thought maybe they changed the definition of the word so I looked. Nope, still the same definition…. “a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed or, a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom. Not sure how my initial comment could have been construed as “seeking to overturn by violence” or even “exciting revolt” so I guess you and I will have to disagree on our opinion of the other in this particular thread.
To be clear, my opinion was that your little timeline scenario above which you clearly consider to be scientific shows me that you have no understanding of basic female biology. So no matter whay my position on this topic, I wouldn’t put the decision in your hands or even take your opinion into account.
Additionally, I don’t even understand what you mean by “abortion for convenience”. Who determines convenience vs. necessity in your scenario? You? Me? The pregnant female or the guy that couldn’t keep it in his pants?
So, for women, it’s considered normal to miss 8 cycles in a row without questioning it? To add weight without explanation at the same time? I’m all eyes and ears. Explain to me how little I know about basic female biology and what I need to know.
Abortion for convenience. Not a hard concept to understand. What’s your reason for an abortion today?
1) A problem for you to continue the pregnancy. (medical risk, personal safety issue)
2) A problem with the baby to continue the pregnancy. (medical disorder / genetic disorder)
3) No medical problem. Just don’t want to keep the resulting baby, and don’t want anyone else to have the baby either. Also, don’t want anyone to find out that I was pregnant, much less, be able to do genetic testing to find out who the father was.
Did I miss a reason as to why abortions take place? I know there is at least one more…like a society forced abortion…but that’s not what we are discussing here.
So you didn’t like my non-productive personal attack? I didn’t care for yours either. I guess we both know how each other feels. But the answer is in your response:
…or, a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.
The “or’s” in the definition distinguish the section of the definition that applies to this situation. A person who promotes disorder. I propose an idea: that order can be defined based on a reasonable position. Of course I feel my position is reasonable. Everyone thinks their position is reasonable. That’s human nature. Rather than discuss with me my position, my idea that such a position would be reasonable practice, you provided a snide personal attack and insinuated that no order is necessary in society, that women should have abortions at any time for any reason. You promote disorder. That makes you an anarchist. Thanks for the definition.
So, for women, it’s considered normal to miss 8 cycles in a row without questioning it? To add weight without explanation at the same time? I’m all eyes and ears. Explain to me how little I know about basic female biology and what I need to know.
What’s a missed cycle? Some people bleed very little and do so throughout the month. Cycles are not nearly as clear as you think they are.
You also base your ideas on the idea that the first cycle will be missed immediately (What about people who don’t have 4 week cycles?). Now, even if they miss 7 cycles, they have time to make a decision. So, they can make a decision in, roughly, negative 8 weeks?
Also, there is birth control that is designed to stop periods from occurring. Even not knowing the vagueries of periods, that’s extremely well known. That you didn’t know this, and that you thought that missing 2 cycles would occur in 8 weeks…in the simplified case you should have learned when you were a kid, it was 10, shows that you are absolutely not qualified to discuss this topic.
Abortion for convenience. Not a hard concept to understand. What’s your reason for an abortion today?
1) A problem for you to continue the pregnancy. (medical risk, personal safety issue)
2) A problem with the baby to continue the pregnancy. (medical disorder / genetic disorder)
3) No medical problem. Just don’t want to keep the resulting baby, and don’t want anyone else to have the baby either. Also, don’t want anyone to find out that I was pregnant, much less, be able to do genetic testing to find out who the father was.
This also disqualifies you to talk about the situation.
So you didn’t like my non-productive personal attack? I didn’t care for yours either. I guess we both know how each other feels. But the answer is in your response:
…or, a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.
The “or’s” in the definition distinguish the section of the definition that applies to this situation. A person who promotes disorder. I propose an idea: that order can be defined based on a reasonable position. Of course I feel my position is reasonable. Everyone thinks their position is reasonable. That’s human nature. Rather than discuss with me my position, my idea that such a position would be reasonable practice, you provided a snide personal attack and insinuated that no order is necessary in society, that women should have abortions at any time for any reason. You promote disorder. That makes you an anarchist. Thanks for the definition.
Danielle doesn’t promote disorder. She just doesn’t back your pulled-out-of-your-ass version of order.
3 posts and you said exactly nothing and anything you think you said was intellectually dishonest.
The first post responded directly to your request for information. I gave it. The second post post was because I couldn’t believe you actually wrote that caricaturization down. The third post was a simple counter to a long rationalization you wrote.
You somehow turned that into an intellectually dishonest nothing. I have no belief that you are arguing in good faith any more, so I’m done with you.
The First was intellectually dishonest because I never advocated a system where we count a woman’s periods and then start an arbitrary clock based on the x missed cycle. That’s all you, and I agree, it’s stupid. What I actually advocated was that there are enough changes to a woman’s physical existence in the first 5 months of pregnancy, that it should be sufficient time to make a decision. I also advocated that if you were completely oblivious to the changes that occur in those first 5 months, it doesn’t matter. You’ve lost your rights to elect an abortion without medical justification. Who’s arguing in bad faith, tgt? Don’t ascribe false meaning to the words that I write.
The Second, you didn’t add anything here, ergo, I can only assume that you wanted to make sure it got the proper screen time by re-posting it so others wouldn’t skim by it.
The Third, you didn’t counter anything. I promoted order (pulled out of my ass order, as any permissive and restrictive abortion policy is), but order nonetheless, and I did that against the backdrop of a society with no order at all. Dismissing thoughts that advocate order then without contributing to the discussion is thus the promotion of disorder, ergo, anarchy.
The First was intellectually dishonest because I never advocated a system where we count a woman’s periods and then start an arbitrary clock based on the x missed cycle. That’s all you, and I agree, it’s stupid. What I actually advocated was that there are enough changes to a woman’s physical existence in the first 5 months of pregnancy, that it should be sufficient time to make a decision.
*sigh*. Just because you say something now, that doesn’t change what you said previously.
I also advocated that if you were completely oblivious to the changes that occur in those first 5 months, it doesn’t matter. You’ve lost your rights to elect an abortion without medical justification.
You argued that 20 weeks was enough time. When I started pointing out that 20 weeks is not 20 weeks, you started shrinking the time, and coming up with secondary reasons why 20 weeks was good. You still haven’t said how much time is granted for actually making the decision. They realize in 19 weeks and 6 days, does that mean they have 1 day to not only make the decision, but to schedule and complete the procedure? All of your after the fact rationalizations (and you were upfront that that is what they are) do not change that your cutoff is arbitrary nonsense.
Who’s arguing in bad faith, tgt? Don’t ascribe false meaning to the words that I write.
Where have I false ascribed meaning to something. Please call me out on it.
The Second, you didn’t add anything here, ergo, I can only assume that you wanted to make sure it got the proper screen time by re-posting it so others wouldn’t skim by it.
I couldn’t let that go unchallenged, but I really didn’t want to get into a discussion about gradients of behavior and contributing ideas. The starkness of it is beyond words.
The Third, you didn’t counter anything. I promoted order (pulled out of my ass order, as any permissive and restrictive abortion policy is), but order nonetheless, and I did that against the backdrop of a society with no order at all. Dismissing thoughts that advocate order then without contributing to the discussion is thus the promotion of disorder, ergo, anarchy.
Liar, liar, pants on fire: “I did that against the backdrop of a society with no order at all”
If you believe that, there’s no reason to argue with you.
All you are doing is changing the order. Why? All I can guess is that you don’t like the current order. You’re no different from the idiots who want to require sonograms or false statements from doctor’s before abortion can occur.
Tim, I wasn’t objecting to the attack, I was objecting to the word choice. I still don’t think it applies but feel free to attack away.
…I also don’t think that whatever someone comes up with Developmentally at 20 weeks should be “hard and fast”, but perhaps that’s the first time when “abortion for convenience” gets shut down.
Why?
Also, “abortion for convenience”? What are you talking about?
The reason I determine “thresholds” without establishing a need is because I’m advocating for a working system.
You’re advocating for an arbitrary system. You can create a working system without pulling cutoff dates out of your ass.
If people can figure out “the how”, then “the why” may or may not follow, but at least they know what the best options are in advance.
No part of this is coherent. How does setting an arbitrary cut off date change or inform about options?
You know what, I’m going to make it illegal for Tim Levier to be a name so we can have a working system of naming. Maybe we can figure out a why later, but at least we’ll know the best options for names in advance.
My idea isn’t any more stupid, arbitrary, or pointless than yours.
If you aren’t even going to try to understand basic concepts, you shouldn’t comment.
Also, you can propose that Tim LeVier should be an illegal name, but it’s not up to you to make it illegal. If a legislature likes the naming system you create and part of it includes your proposal, and it changes the world for the better, then they are the ones that will decide.
See how that works? If you don’t, then just stop.
If you aren’t even going to try to understand basic concepts, you shouldn’t comment.
What? What am I not trying to understand?You wrote something that had no discernible meaning and I asked for clarification.
Also, you can propose that Tim LeVier should be an illegal name, but it’s not up to you to make it illegal. If a legislature likes the naming system you create and part of it includes your proposal, and it changes the world for the better, then they are the ones that will decide.
So what?
The point I was making is that your proposal is no less arbitrary and stupid than mine.
When it comes to abortion, every proposal is arbitrary.
When it comes to abortion, every proposal is arbitrary.
If you believe that, the only sane position is to let it alone.
Tim: As you’ve probably concluded, TGT is resorting to his usual tactics of a massive verbal barrage in order to save face and skew the heart issues. He just believes that children have no right to live beyond what standards he and others of his ilk would impose. Those who reject God always seem to find it necessary to usurp His role for themselves. As TGT so well proves, they make a chilling substitute.
Again, SMP, you fail to interact with the actual arguments. You pretend that arguments are word salid so you can ignore them.
You then slander my character and lie about what I am doing.
And then the kicker is the irrelevant and incorrect talk about God.
In reference to TGT’s statement of 16MAR12 at 1230:
I’m interacting fully with the arguments. Your long and verbose comments, based on some of the most banal sophistry and rhetorical acrobatics that I’ve yet seen from you, suggests a bad case of the lunatic fixation that secular leftists have with killing babies as fast as they can.
There’s no other way to view it. Even King Herod himself would have been floored by the sheer savagery of it for the sake of courting indigents, criminals and clueless kids for political reasons. The extent to which something like this can be lied about, rationalized on or imposed on society by corrupt jurists and legislators is a stunning indictment of the worst of human nature run rampant.
No God, no goodness.
SMP,
You are not interacting with the arguments. This thread of the discussion with Tim had a number of arguments. Instead of engaging in them, you pop by to impute motives on me and lie about what I am doing, but you didn’t touch a single one of the arguments. I stand by my statement.
Your latest comment was more of the same. Nobody has a desire to kill babies or fetuses. I believe you would have crossed the line into slander again, but your position is so ridiculous that I don’t think anyone could believe it, so I can’t say that I am hurt by it.
How does it feel to have spent so much effort squirming and twisting like a fish on a hook, all to uphold the concept that children are as disposable as their diapers when inconvenient? Do you ever get just a tinge of unease at the enormity of what you’re defending? Just a little, maybe? Good God.
Again, imputing a position on me which I do not hold and have not ever backed. In this case though, it’s not strawmanning, it’s an attempt to undermine my character. Sheesh.
I’m not doing that, Tiggy. It’s self-inflicted. Look at all the verbiage you strewn all over this column… all with the same message. Children are the equivalent of crap. But, of course, without saying it openly. You should work for Media Matters. I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much said in order to obscure so little.
You’re now doubling down on an untruth when you’ve been called out on it. If a spade’s a spade, your comments are a lie.
Your posts keep compelling me to ponder: Is anything in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution relevant to the “property” status and liberty issues being discussed here? (I’ll concede, I may be raising points here that are less relevant to ethics and more relevant to issues of law.)
Do, or can, the People rightfully claim interests that override interests of a pregnant woman whose “property” the People deem relevant to “secur[ing] the blessings of liberty to [the People] and [the People’s] posterity?” Is there some quality, of organisms for which personhood is an issue, such that property, liberty, and posterity interests are not exclusively “Matria Potestas?”
It seems that if the federal government is found to be within constitutional bounds to require an individual to purchase health care insurance, then one practical effect of that mandated purchase would include “doctor’s orders,” which in turn would include an expectation of an individual who is presumed to benefit from that mandated purchase to use certain medications per a doctor’s orders.
Therefore, it seems inconsistent to contend that, on the one hand, the state (the People) has interests in an individual’s health (and interests in “property” which is involved in commerce), to such an extent that that individual at least implicitly has an obligation to forfeit autonomy over her body for the sake of fulfilling the purpose of her mandated health care insurance – while on the other hand, the state has no interest in any particular “property” associated with her health status, whether that “property” is inside her body or not.
i always learn something from this blog. I don’t agree very often, but I learn things. One thing I will agree with here, though, and that is that saying Obama legalized infanticide is a senseless soundbite. Thank you for the careful attention you devoted here.
And some people think blogs are shallow?
g.
Close your mouth, C.R. You’ll catch flies.
My belief about the morality of infanticide is that its rightness and wrongness depends on if God says no, you may, or you must. It is the basic principle of God-based morals and ethics.
Which is why God-based morality is ridiculous. There is no standard.
Abortion is not birth control. I do not believe that it should be allowed at any stage of tje pregnancy unless there is a likely chance that carrying the child would kill the mother.
So I guess you could say I agee with the reports arguement that killing the newborn is the same as an abortion, they are both wrong.
I am still trying.to wrap my head around “morally irrelevant”.
Pingback: “Baby-Killing” Ethics | Ethics Alarms « Ethics Find
tgt, my point was that you can’t deny that a newborn baby is different from a fetus. You can get all wise-assed about it, but you can’t tell me they aren’t different. Of course, I don’t believe in killing either fetuses or newborns, but say that right off the bat and the hysteria starts. However, the scientists’ argument that human babies have no awareness is a real ‘Duh’ reason to kill them, it is using the state all humans are born in to rationalize killing them, kind of dumbshit logic doncha think? ‘Humans are born helpless so you can kill them and it’s no different from an abortion’, really!?
tgt, my point was that you can’t deny that a newborn baby is different from a fetus. You can get all wise-assed about it, but you can’t tell me they aren’t different.
Tell me what’s different? Other than not having to be cared for by one specific body, what is different?
However, the scientists’ argument that human babies have no awareness is a real ‘Duh’ reason to kill them, it is using the state all humans are born in to rationalize killing them, kind of dumbshit logic doncha think? ‘Humans are born helpless so you can kill them and it’s no different from an abortion’, really!?
Ugh. It’s the other way around. We use intelligence and awareness as the building blocks from which we build human rights. If you take those away, what do you have left?
God.
“The professors, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, argue in an article published in the British Journal of Medical Ethics that neither fetuses nor newborns have “the same moral status as actual persons” because they’re not yet aware of their own existence — so “after-birth abortion” is “no different to abortion” during pregnancy.
This isn’t so crazy: Biologically, at least, Giubilini and Minerva are “on firm ground,” says Nelson Jones at New Statesman. Human babies are born prematurely by mammalian standards, so a newborn baby is “in many ways still a fetus” who is “wholly dependent” on adults to care for him for months, if not years. The ethicists simply raise “the valid question of when any abortion law should draw the line,” since our opinions on when a person becomes a person are somewhat arbitrary.”
Infanticide is just a natural extension of abortion. Shut up tgt,I don’t want to hear it.
Uh, What?
She’s trying to tell you, TGT, that, based on your own philosophies, even a toddler is now to be regarded as an expendable biological “mishap”. This is the slippery moral slope we’ve been warning you about. Once the status of human life in the womb is degraded to nothing, then follows (in succession) partial birth abortion, babies who survived abortion… and now children up to the age of two. God alone knows where it goes from here.
From here it goes to euthanasia for infirm,the elderly,the mentally ill because they use up too many precious resources and contribute nothing to the hive.
This is what happens when we overturn human society from the family base to a soulless, all-encompassing State. The result- and pending consequences- read like a script from “The Twilight Zone”. You are OBSOLETE!
Those aren’t my theories. If you can’t accurately represent my position after all these posts, you are hopeless.
What I was actually questioning was “Shut up tgt,I don’t want to hear it.”
That’s because you yourself can’t, TGT.
It appeared to be placed randomly in an attempt to end discussion. Karla tried to make a point, and then said I shouldn’t be allowed to refute her. Not exactly open inquiry.
Now it’s both ego and victim mentality vying with each other! Just one or the other- please.
Ugh. It was neither. I was not playing the victim. Just pointing out that Karla has resorted to fingers in her ears “lalala I can’t hear you!”
Tgt,regarding my putting my fingers in my ears,here’s the thing. You’re tendency to be thoroughly confusing by carrying what I say so far off the track is one reason I do this.
Can you please let me know when I’ve gone off track so I can apologize? Past instances will work. I can’t think of any.
“Can you please let me know when I’ve gone off track so I can apologize? Past instances will work. I can’t think of any.”
I haven’t saved any of your comments and I don’t want to look them up but as a small example,when I said abortion progresses to infanticide you said,”“Interracial marriage leads to interspecies marriage.” Unless you’re a red neck moron,nobody would think that.That confused me because I could see no connection in it with what I said. There would be no talk of infanticide being acceptable if abortion were not first made acceptable.It dulls the conscience,desensitizes so as to accept more horrific things later. If photos of fully formed aborted fetuses don’t tug at your heart then just maybe slain newborns won’t either. It’s said the fetus isn’t human,isn’t a person. Now it’s said neither is the newborn. That’s a pattern,a progression. I know you don’t see it which makes me wonder if you and that redneck have more in common than not.Neither of you seem to see reality.
The interracial marriage wasn’t off topic. It was a parallel situation. When interracial marriage was being debated, the argument against was that it would lead to interspecies marriage (and polygamy and child marriage, etc).
Yes it’s a ridiculous position, but so is thinking that abortion leads to infanticide. All the things you say about abortion have parallel comments about interracial marriage: “There would be no talk of [interspecies marriage] being acceptable if [interracial marriage] were not first made acceptable.It dulls the conscience,desensitizes so as to accept more horrific things later.”
If photos of fully formed aborted fetuses don’t tug at your heart then just maybe slain newborns won’t either.
And what does tugging on my heartstrings have to do with anything? It tugs on my heartstrings that Tyler Clementi killed himself after being outed as gay, but that doesn’t mean punishing his roomate was a logical position. Your statement is also not logical, like this: If killing cows for steak doesn’t tug on your heartstrings, then maybe killing humans won’t either.
It’s said the fetus isn’t human,isn’t a person.
No. It’s true. If you deny biological fact, you’re lost.
Now it’s said neither is the newborn. That’s a pattern,a progression.
And that would be an incorrect overreach. Something not supported. That’s not a pattern or a progression.
“It’s said the fetus isn’t human,isn’t a person.
No. It’s true. If you deny biological fact, you’re lost.”
The fetus is human.That is a biological fact. Did you forget DNA? And yes,infanticide is indeed a progression from abortion whether you choose to see it or not. Morally inclined people have been saying all along that the dehumanizing of fetuses will lead to euthanasia being debated or becoming acceptable. And now it has..
Tgt,I assumed you would have something to say about infanticide being a natural progression from abortion. It is and it’s not up for debate.
Hah. You know what else is a natural progression that’s not up for debate? Interracial marriage leads to interspecies marriage. What? That didn’t happen?
Your attempt to shut down discussion is atrocious, especially since you are stating unbacked opinion. Not fact.
“Interracial marriage leads to interspecies marriage.” Teeg you are really bizarre sometimes. I don’t know how old you are but when I was a kid and abortion became legal,the argument was that the embryo/fetus wasn’t a baby so it’s okay to kill it. Then when 3rd trimester abortions were being performed the reasoning was changed to that it’s a baby but it’s not viable outside the womb so it’s okay to kill it. Now there’s talk of abortion outside the womb on a viable baby and they’re reasoning is it’s not an actual person.Years ago people wouldn’t have even considered legalized abortion. They would have been horrified at killing a fully formed fetus let alone a newborn. Now all these things are being done or discussed as if it’s right and normal.It’s progression.
That progression is interesting, as it’s still true that a fetus is not a baby. Nothing has changed about that fact.
You also seem to have a muddled argument. Your comment that “Years ago people wouldn’t have even considered legalized abortion. They would have been horrified at killing a fully formed fetus let alone a newborn.” is either in direct contradition to your timeline of pro-abortion arguments, or it is completely irrelevant.
Irrelevant seems to be your favorite word. Of course it’s relevant since we’re talking about human ethics here. And my timeline would have been long before legalized abortion was considered.
Your timeline was not long before legalized abortion was considered – the timeline was specifically about when legalizing abortion was considered.
I’m calling a spade a spade here. Either your lying about something that’s plain as day, or your writing is so muddled as to be incoherent.
Now, the irrelevance is because people didn’t agree before and dont’ agree now. What would be relevant would be discussing the current beliefs of people who originally backed abortions. If their beliefs have changed, then you might have a point. Otherwise, no.
It’s happened, Karla. We’ve just driven Tiggy completely off his rocker. If that last comment doesn’t prove it, nuthin’ will!
;^) Golly,I appreciate your help,Steven.
It’s all I can do to keep up with his between job assignments, Karla. Speaking of which…!
If you think irrelevant ad hominem attacks are help, then you aren’t arguing in good faith either. Just because someone agrees with you doesn’t make every thing they say gospel.
I just like the fact that Steven is so much better at arguing a point than I am so I appreciate his help. Before I was wrestling with you alone.
AND YOU ARE???
What’s this in response to. I’m unclear on what it means.