Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of 'After-Birth Abortions'

[McCordRm]

This. Is. SPARTA!!

[Glassed Silver]

Actually, I do, I went through a lot of it with my own child.

So you've probably been told the diagnosis bears a certain undeniable risk.

How can you deny its existence - or more so: imply the irrelevance of it?

I know, in many cases these diagnosis might even be necessary, but I think it's important to note that if there is no urge to do it, you shouldn't do it for the heck of it.

Maybe we can agree on that?

Glassed Silver:mac

[soniqstylz]

You need to look up what ethics is before making a judgment on the authors. Ethics is not the same as morals. Ethics are neutral and can never be good or bad. If someone has bad ethics, it doesn't mean anything more than that they are not following a very specific decision making process. Under utilitarianism, what is being suggested here is actually ethical. It makes the most people happy. This action would also be perfectly fine under egoism which is the same form of ethics used to justify abortions to begin with.

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/ethics

ethics

[eth-iks] ? Example Sentences Origin

eth?ics

? ?[eth-iks] noun

1.

( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

2.

the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particularclass of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.:medical ethics; Christian ethics.

3.

moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

4.

( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to th egoodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

[soniqstylz]

So you've probably been told the diagnosis bears a certain undeniable risk.

How can you deny its existence - or more so: imply the irrelevance of it?

I know, in many cases these diagnosis might even be necessary, but I think it's important to note that if there is no urge to do it, you shouldn't do it for the heck of it.

Maybe we can agree on that?

Glassed Silver:mac

Sure, not for the heck of it, but there are non-invasive procedures that can give you a baseline to go from. Family history is also a factor.

If you're not willing to risk those procedures, if the child is that important to you, then why does the child suddenly become irrelevant once it's born?

Also, the exact same thing applies to things like immunizations -- there is a minimal risk involved, but the benefit may outweigh that. It's up to the parents.

[ILikeTobacco]

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/ethics

ethics

[eth-iks] ? Example Sentences Origin

eth?ics

? ?[eth-iks] noun

1.

( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

2.

the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particularclass of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.:medical ethics; Christian ethics.

3.

moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

4.

( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to th egoodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

You just proved my point of ethics and morals not being the same thing and you don't even understand why do you? Here is a hint. Morals are not the same as moral principles.

[DocM]

The problem is that increasingly TPTB want to substitute ethics for morality. The problem with this is that often ethics are far more fungible.

BTW: eugenics started in Germany with the works of August Weismann, and was popularized by the 1912 founding of the Congress of Eugenics - which was presided over by Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin.

Eugenics was all the rage among the progressives of the day, and its influence persists - one example being Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger, its founder, was a bigtime eugenics proponent who more than once gave presentations extolling minority population control to racist groups like the KKK. George Bernard Shaw even proposed gassing many of the uneducated, infirm etc. classes in the 1930's.

[ILikeTobacco]

George Bernard Shaw even proposed gassing many of the uneducated, infirm etc. classes in the 1930's.

After watching Idiocracy, it isn't hard to imagine why.

[BoredBozirini]

I have to say, why not?

[DocM]

Because at some point some bureaucrat will decide the retroactive abortion of sexy pepperoni lovers is a good idea?

Slippery slope, my friend.

[pack34]

Just to play devil's advocate, what's the big physical difference between a late term abortion and an after-birth abortion? With the seemingly risen numbers of premature babies, it's very possible to abort a child that's farther along in development than another that was born. Yet we treat them differently.

[chrisj1968]

Eugenicist's wet dream. This is pure murder.

[ILikeTobacco]

Just to play devil's advocate, what's the big physical difference between a late term abortion and an after-birth abortion? With the seemingly risen numbers of premature babies, it's very possible to abort a child that's farther along in development than another that was born. Yet we treat them differently.

That's the point they are making. The two are the same by all ethical standards. That means if you can justify one, both are true. If you want to deny one, both should be denied. That's how ethics work. They shouldn't be situational so if it is the correct choice for one, it is the correct choice for the other.

But as DocM said, it is a slippery slope. It is why there is a continuous battle to redefine when the fetus becomes human.

[Glassed Silver]

That's the point they are making. The two are the same by all ethical standards. That means if you can justify one, both are true. If you want to deny one, both should be denied. That's how ethics work. They shouldn't be situational so if it is the correct choice for one, it is the correct choice for the other.

But as DocM said, it is a slippery slope. It is why there is a continuous battle to redefine when the fetus becomes human.

This.

IMHO, abortion is often defended in hypocritical ways... From an ethical point of view.

I'm pretty much against almost any form of it, obviously the "after-birth" is one of them.

Well, their arguing just supports my stance, so booyah, suckers! (not you guys :p)

Glassed Silver:mac

[ArialBlue]

I am not even going to read that.

How about information, condoms, birth control pills, abstinence, and general society fixing to AVOID the discussion of anything or relation to abortions?

You know I think about the pro-life and pro-choice groups? Neither should exist because in a near-perfect society the issue should not exist.

[redfish]

This isn't a new idea.. the extremest fringes of the pro-choice movement has always people arguing for this; but people choose to focus on the extremists fringes of the pro-life movement, and pretend that extremes dont exist on both sides.

[Andre S. Veteran]

First of all, I will point out that I am personally against abortion. I can, however, see the point these people are making at the purpose it serves. They are not saying that after-birth abortions are morally correct and they are not saying before-birth abortions are incorrect. They are saying the two are exactly the same in certain circumstances, and based on ethics, not morals, they are 100% correct. The reasons that are used to justify killing an unborn child are just as valid shortly after birth.

While I don't understand your distinction between "ethics" and "morals", the point you make here is basically what I was about to say. There is, however you look at it, no intrinsic difference between the fetus and the newborn, except one is very slightly older. The fact that the newborn is not linked to his mother by an umbilical cord, and lives outside his mother's womb rather than inside, are extrinsic, not intrinsic, differences. Thus, if we consider that what lives inside the mother's womb is not a person until birth, then we are defining what a person is by extrinsic characteristics (such as where one is physically located), rather than by intrinsic characteristics, i.e. what a human being is, by itself.

Bottom line is, the definition of person in the law is archaic and has, does and will lead to ethicists defending these sort of positions where it becomes legitimate to kill innocents, on the basis that their status as "persons" is questionable. Abortion was one step, euthanasia is the next, this might be next. We're pretty much back to Antiquity where people would abandon their newborn on the street.

Moreover this whole line of thinking stinks of eugenics, which threathens to alter the value of human life based on arbitrary "genetical excellency" criteria.

[Original Poster]

thats simply murder

[ILikeTobacco]

While I don't understand your distinction between "ethics" and "morals"

It is a hard distinction to make in a simple way. It is the reason why there are entire university courses that spend the entire semester trying to distinguish between what is ethically correct and what is morally correct.

Many of them start with the question, if given the chance, would it be ethical to go back in time and kill Hitler as a child. One said argues that yes, it would be because it would prevent the Holocaust, saving millions of lives. The other side would argue that it would be unethical because the wars that came from him resulted in advances in technology and medicine that has/will save billions of lives. Ethics are a fun game to play.

[redfish]

It is a hard distinction to make in a simple way. It is the reason why there are entire university courses that spend the entire semester trying to distinguish between what is ethically correct and what is morally correct.

Many of them start with the question, if given the chance, would it be ethical to go back in time and kill Hitler as a child. One said argues that yes, it would be because it would prevent the Holocaust, saving millions of lives. The other side would argue that it would be unethical because the wars that came from him resulted in advances in technology and medicine that has/will save billions of lives. Ethics are a fun game to play.

Ethics and morals are different, but they're related to each other; its kind of like saying that fact and truth are different things. Fact and truth are different, but they're related; that something is a fact is either true or not true, and that something is true is either a fact or not a fact. Ethics and morals are two sides of the same coin. And utilitarianism isn't inherent in the definition of ethics; its only one understanding of ethics.

Also the authors talk about what should be allowed legally, and not just the abstracts of the ethics.

[Aethec]

Great...just what the anti-human rights* folks needed to say "look, pro-abortion people are weird".

*I say "anti-human rights" because the U.N. declared abortion and contraception to be human rights; the whole "pro-life" and "pro-choice" thing is nonsense. If you are against abortion or contraception, you are against human rights, period. (of course, that doesn't mean you should be one of these "let's allow everyone to have dozens of abortions" people - if you need more than one abortion in your life, there's something wrong somewhere)

[DConnell Member]

"After-birth abortions"? Why not just call it what it is? Murder.

[Tom]

Firstly I'd like to know how on earth they got a job as an ethicist. :|

Secondly I honestly have no idea how on earth they came to this conclusion. It sounds like they tried to think deeply into something, got lazy and came to a conclusion that would 'shock'. For instance an ethical religous viewpoint would straight away shoot this conclusion down (on the basis of pro-life) and even from a humanists ethical viewpoint, again it would be shut down instantly.

I'm a humanist and think this a ****ing awful idea.

[deactivated_]

Just when you thought we couldn't get any worse....

[justmike]

Nice try.

But if you had actual knowledge about these methods of diagnosis you'd know they don't play in the same league as unpreventable risks.

Glassed Silver:mac

Risks, like death?

[Charisma Veteran]

Firstly I'd like to know how on earth they got a job as an ethicist. :|

Secondly I honestly have no idea how on earth they came to this conclusion. It sounds like they tried to think deeply into something, got lazy and came to a conclusion that would 'shock'. For instance an ethical religous viewpoint would straight away shoot this conclusion down (on the basis of pro-life) and even from a humanists ethical viewpoint, again it would be shut down instantly.

I'm a humanist and think this a ****ing awful idea.

You know what I thought when I first read it? Just my initial impression? The female involved here had an abortion at some point in her life, and is being driven crazy with the guilt, to the point where she's rationalising farther and farther away from reality to try and make it "OK". A lot of people struggle with their decision after the fact, sometimes for the rest of their lives. It struck me as a conclusion by someone kind of desperate and crazy.