Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
"After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
Obama 2012
()
Date: February 28, 2012 12:22PM
Well its about time...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 28, 2012 12:52PM
The Blaze is either a hardcore right-wing rag, or a news parody site. I honestly can't tell.
If this is a legitimate article about real things in the real world, then it's a really stupid idea that people are just using to push their own agenda. Their argument is basically, "A fetus is a potential person, not an actual person, and a newborn baby shares the same qualities as a fetus, so a newborn baby is not an actual person." It's hard to take someone's opinion seriously when they ask you to make no distinction between a clump of cells that has no heart and cannot breathe and a crying, pooping newborn baby.
They use Down Syndrome as an example, but most modernized nations can tell if a baby has severe congenital defects before it's past the point where abortion is no longer practical. They're also saying that the "after-birth abortion" should be used if the baby presents exceptional hardships to the family, but that just creates a stupid paradox; it's a lot cheaper and easier to get a couple tests and decide to abort than it is to carry the child full-term, so there wouldn't be any need for "after-birth abortions" if the social and religious stigma of abortion was removed.
Someone could easily argue the other side of this moronic argument by saying that if abortions are outlawed, so should minor surgeries such as a tonsilectomy or appendectomy. If clumps of growing and dividing cells have the same right as humans, then who are you to deny the "right to life" for individual organs?
It really is a shame, though:
She's really cute, but not cute enough to get away with being this dumb.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
If this is a legitimate article about real things in the real world, then it's a really stupid idea that people are just using to push their own agenda. Their argument is basically, "A fetus is a potential person, not an actual person, and a newborn baby shares the same qualities as a fetus, so a newborn baby is not an actual person." It's hard to take someone's opinion seriously when they ask you to make no distinction between a clump of cells that has no heart and cannot breathe and a crying, pooping newborn baby.
They use Down Syndrome as an example, but most modernized nations can tell if a baby has severe congenital defects before it's past the point where abortion is no longer practical. They're also saying that the "after-birth abortion" should be used if the baby presents exceptional hardships to the family, but that just creates a stupid paradox; it's a lot cheaper and easier to get a couple tests and decide to abort than it is to carry the child full-term, so there wouldn't be any need for "after-birth abortions" if the social and religious stigma of abortion was removed.
Someone could easily argue the other side of this moronic argument by saying that if abortions are outlawed, so should minor surgeries such as a tonsilectomy or appendectomy. If clumps of growing and dividing cells have the same right as humans, then who are you to deny the "right to life" for individual organs?
It really is a shame, though:
She's really cute, but not cute enough to get away with being this dumb.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
LaughSirLots
()
Date: February 28, 2012 12:55PM
I've seen some Obama haters quote news articles from the The Onion... go figure.
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
Go ahead and read it...
()
Date: February 28, 2012 01:23PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Blaze is either a hardcore right-wing rag, or
> a news parody site. I honestly can't tell.
>
> If this is a legitimate article about real things
> in the real world, then it's a really stupid idea
> that people are just using to push their own
> agenda. Their argument is basically, "A fetus is a
> potential person, not an actual person, and a
> newborn baby shares the same qualities as a fetus,
> so a newborn baby is not an actual person." It's
> hard to take someone's opinion seriously when they
> ask you to make no distinction between a clump of
> cells that has no heart and cannot breathe and a
> crying, pooping newborn baby.
>
> They use Down Syndrome as an example, but most
> modernized nations can tell if a baby has severe
> congenital defects before it's past the point
> where abortion is no longer practical. They're
> also saying that the "after-birth abortion" should
> be used if the baby presents exceptional hardships
> to the family, but that just creates a stupid
> paradox; it's a lot cheaper and easier to get a
> couple tests and decide to abort than it is to
> carry the child full-term, so there wouldn't be
> any need for "after-birth abortions" if the social
> and religious stigma of abortion was removed.
>
> Someone could easily argue the other side of this
> moronic argument by saying that if abortions are
> outlawed, so should minor surgeries such as a
> tonsilectomy or appendectomy. If clumps of growing
> and dividing cells have the same right as humans,
> then who are you to deny the "right to life" for
> individual organs?
>
The Blaze is just a news aggregator. It links to other news sites, it doesn't create content.
The case for "after birth" abortion is moronic to be sure, but its being argued by 2 university professors in a supposedly respectable medical publication. And they were being serious.
A link to the full text of the article is provided if you'd like to read it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Blaze is either a hardcore right-wing rag, or
> a news parody site. I honestly can't tell.
>
> If this is a legitimate article about real things
> in the real world, then it's a really stupid idea
> that people are just using to push their own
> agenda. Their argument is basically, "A fetus is a
> potential person, not an actual person, and a
> newborn baby shares the same qualities as a fetus,
> so a newborn baby is not an actual person." It's
> hard to take someone's opinion seriously when they
> ask you to make no distinction between a clump of
> cells that has no heart and cannot breathe and a
> crying, pooping newborn baby.
>
> They use Down Syndrome as an example, but most
> modernized nations can tell if a baby has severe
> congenital defects before it's past the point
> where abortion is no longer practical. They're
> also saying that the "after-birth abortion" should
> be used if the baby presents exceptional hardships
> to the family, but that just creates a stupid
> paradox; it's a lot cheaper and easier to get a
> couple tests and decide to abort than it is to
> carry the child full-term, so there wouldn't be
> any need for "after-birth abortions" if the social
> and religious stigma of abortion was removed.
>
> Someone could easily argue the other side of this
> moronic argument by saying that if abortions are
> outlawed, so should minor surgeries such as a
> tonsilectomy or appendectomy. If clumps of growing
> and dividing cells have the same right as humans,
> then who are you to deny the "right to life" for
> individual organs?
>
The Blaze is just a news aggregator. It links to other news sites, it doesn't create content.
The case for "after birth" abortion is moronic to be sure, but its being argued by 2 university professors in a supposedly respectable medical publication. And they were being serious.
A link to the full text of the article is provided if you'd like to read it.
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
We're almost there now
()
Date: February 28, 2012 01:38PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They're also saying that the "after-birth abortion" should
> be used if the baby presents exceptional hardships
> to the family, but that just creates a stupid
> paradox; it's a lot cheaper and easier to get a
> couple tests and decide to abort than it is to
> carry the child full-term, so there wouldn't be
> any need for "after-birth abortions" if the social
> and religious stigma of abortion was removed.
If there's a "need" for late term and partial-birth abortions then after-birth abortions can't be far behind.
And the stigma doesn't need to be removed. Being a fuck-up SHOULD have a stigma attached. A big one.
-------------------------------------------------------
> They're also saying that the "after-birth abortion" should
> be used if the baby presents exceptional hardships
> to the family, but that just creates a stupid
> paradox; it's a lot cheaper and easier to get a
> couple tests and decide to abort than it is to
> carry the child full-term, so there wouldn't be
> any need for "after-birth abortions" if the social
> and religious stigma of abortion was removed.
If there's a "need" for late term and partial-birth abortions then after-birth abortions can't be far behind.
And the stigma doesn't need to be removed. Being a fuck-up SHOULD have a stigma attached. A big one.
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
Hay Zeus
()
Date: February 28, 2012 02:04PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Blaze is either a hardcore right-wing rag, or
> a news parody site. I honestly can't tell.
>
Yet Obama failed to support a bill that would protect the rights of infants that were born alive during an abortion procedure as Illinois State Senator.
In essence Obama is ok, if an infant was intended to be aborted, yet survived and was alive outside the womb, is terminated because the intention was for it to be aborted.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/feb/24/picket-obamas-bad-moves-infanticide-come-back-haun/
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Blaze is either a hardcore right-wing rag, or
> a news parody site. I honestly can't tell.
>
Yet Obama failed to support a bill that would protect the rights of infants that were born alive during an abortion procedure as Illinois State Senator.
In essence Obama is ok, if an infant was intended to be aborted, yet survived and was alive outside the womb, is terminated because the intention was for it to be aborted.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/feb/24/picket-obamas-bad-moves-infanticide-come-back-haun/
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
Helper
()
Date: February 28, 2012 02:13PM
Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet Obama failed to support a bill that would
> protect the rights of infants that were born alive
> during an abortion procedure as Illinois State
> Senator.
>
> In essence Obama is ok, if an infant was intended
> to be aborted, yet survived and was alive outside
> the womb, is terminated because the intention was
> for it to be aborted.
Pick all of the nits you want. Anyone who cares about this issue already well knows the President's views and vote and will, therefore, not be voting for him. None of the rest of us gives a rat's ass.
Glad to have been able to help.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet Obama failed to support a bill that would
> protect the rights of infants that were born alive
> during an abortion procedure as Illinois State
> Senator.
>
> In essence Obama is ok, if an infant was intended
> to be aborted, yet survived and was alive outside
> the womb, is terminated because the intention was
> for it to be aborted.
Pick all of the nits you want. Anyone who cares about this issue already well knows the President's views and vote and will, therefore, not be voting for him. None of the rest of us gives a rat's ass.
Glad to have been able to help.
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
Hay Zeus
()
Date: February 28, 2012 02:24PM
Since Obama thinks killing viable babies born alive is still "abortion" i keep waiting for it to come up with all the other contraception/abortion discussions.
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: February 28, 2012 02:32PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Blaze is either a hardcore right-wing rag, or
> a news parody site. I honestly can't tell.
>
> If this is a legitimate article about real things
> in the real world, then it's a really stupid idea
> that people are just using to push their own
> agenda. Their argument is basically, "A fetus is a
> potential person, not an actual person, and a
> newborn baby shares the same qualities as a fetus,
> so a newborn baby is not an actual person." It's
> hard to take someone's opinion seriously when they
> ask you to make no distinction between a clump of
> cells that has no heart and cannot breathe and a
> crying, pooping newborn baby.
>
> They use Down Syndrome as an example, but most
> modernized nations can tell if a baby has severe
> congenital defects before it's past the point
> where abortion is no longer practical. They're
> also saying that the "after-birth abortion" should
> be used if the baby presents exceptional hardships
> to the family, but that just creates a stupid
> paradox; it's a lot cheaper and easier to get a
> couple tests and decide to abort than it is to
> carry the child full-term, so there wouldn't be
> any need for "after-birth abortions" if the social
> and religious stigma of abortion was removed.
>
> Someone could easily argue the other side of this
> moronic argument by saying that if abortions are
> outlawed, so should minor surgeries such as a
> tonsilectomy or appendectomy. If clumps of growing
> and dividing cells have the same right as humans,
> then who are you to deny the "right to life" for
> individual organs?
Sorry Mephisto, got to give an opposing view here.....
First, these two are not the first to advocate after birth abortions, there was another professor over a decade ago in the US that supported this same idea.
Earth's population will reach seven billion individuals this year, and the planet is already stretched beyond capacity to support all these people. More and more poor people are having multiple children, while affluent, educated people are shying away from having any children....
Children born to poor, uneducated people rarely have the same opportunities in life that are given to children of parents with at least modest income. Often these poor children just perpetuate poverty themselves when they reach adulthood.
Now onto children born with mental or physical disabilities, there are some disabilities present in infants that do not become obvious until days or weeks AFTER birth.
After birth abortions are humane, sensible, and free these children from a life of limited function. It also frees the parents from the burden of raising these disabled children, and frees medical resources that can be used to treat more functional, normal people.
Abortion, including after birth abortion, is a cure for perpetual poverty, and burdened medical and welfare systems.
Blessed are the murderous.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Blaze is either a hardcore right-wing rag, or
> a news parody site. I honestly can't tell.
>
> If this is a legitimate article about real things
> in the real world, then it's a really stupid idea
> that people are just using to push their own
> agenda. Their argument is basically, "A fetus is a
> potential person, not an actual person, and a
> newborn baby shares the same qualities as a fetus,
> so a newborn baby is not an actual person." It's
> hard to take someone's opinion seriously when they
> ask you to make no distinction between a clump of
> cells that has no heart and cannot breathe and a
> crying, pooping newborn baby.
>
> They use Down Syndrome as an example, but most
> modernized nations can tell if a baby has severe
> congenital defects before it's past the point
> where abortion is no longer practical. They're
> also saying that the "after-birth abortion" should
> be used if the baby presents exceptional hardships
> to the family, but that just creates a stupid
> paradox; it's a lot cheaper and easier to get a
> couple tests and decide to abort than it is to
> carry the child full-term, so there wouldn't be
> any need for "after-birth abortions" if the social
> and religious stigma of abortion was removed.
>
> Someone could easily argue the other side of this
> moronic argument by saying that if abortions are
> outlawed, so should minor surgeries such as a
> tonsilectomy or appendectomy. If clumps of growing
> and dividing cells have the same right as humans,
> then who are you to deny the "right to life" for
> individual organs?
Sorry Mephisto, got to give an opposing view here.....
First, these two are not the first to advocate after birth abortions, there was another professor over a decade ago in the US that supported this same idea.
Earth's population will reach seven billion individuals this year, and the planet is already stretched beyond capacity to support all these people. More and more poor people are having multiple children, while affluent, educated people are shying away from having any children....
Children born to poor, uneducated people rarely have the same opportunities in life that are given to children of parents with at least modest income. Often these poor children just perpetuate poverty themselves when they reach adulthood.
Now onto children born with mental or physical disabilities, there are some disabilities present in infants that do not become obvious until days or weeks AFTER birth.
After birth abortions are humane, sensible, and free these children from a life of limited function. It also frees the parents from the burden of raising these disabled children, and frees medical resources that can be used to treat more functional, normal people.
Abortion, including after birth abortion, is a cure for perpetual poverty, and burdened medical and welfare systems.
Blessed are the murderous.
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
Curious Me
()
Date: February 28, 2012 02:35PM
Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet Obama failed to support a bill that would
> protect the rights of infants that were born alive
> during an abortion procedure as Illinois State
> Senator.
Why would infants born alive need to have their rights protected?
If the child is born, it's born. Murder is already illegal (and, as I understand it, widely frowned upon).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet Obama failed to support a bill that would
> protect the rights of infants that were born alive
> during an abortion procedure as Illinois State
> Senator.
Why would infants born alive need to have their rights protected?
If the child is born, it's born. Murder is already illegal (and, as I understand it, widely frowned upon).
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
Warhawk
()
Date: February 28, 2012 02:39PM
I can think of a few adults that need to be aborted ASAP. And I can think of a few FFXU posters that need the same treatment.
__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.
__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
Smoking gun?
()
Date: February 28, 2012 03:08PM
Curious Me Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Why would infants born alive need to have their
> rights protected?
>
> If the child is born, it's born. Murder is
> already illegal (and, as I understand it, widely
> frowned upon).
In a perfect world, this would be true.
But occasionally one of these partial-birth abortions is "botched" and the child is accidently born alive. At which point the baby (now outside the womb and surviving on its own) is terminated by other means.
Apparently this is a practice that our fearless leader supported when he was a Illinois state senator:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/feb/24/picket-obamas-bad-moves-infanticide-come-back-haun/
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Why would infants born alive need to have their
> rights protected?
>
> If the child is born, it's born. Murder is
> already illegal (and, as I understand it, widely
> frowned upon).
In a perfect world, this would be true.
But occasionally one of these partial-birth abortions is "botched" and the child is accidently born alive. At which point the baby (now outside the womb and surviving on its own) is terminated by other means.
Apparently this is a practice that our fearless leader supported when he was a Illinois state senator:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/feb/24/picket-obamas-bad-moves-infanticide-come-back-haun/
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
tk
()
Date: February 28, 2012 03:11PM
hey eesh...sounds like you would agree with the actions of WWII nazi germany then.
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
Curious Me
()
Date: February 28, 2012 03:26PM
Smoking gun? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But occasionally one of these partial-birth
> abortions is "botched" and the child is accidently
> born alive. At which point the baby (now outside
> the womb and surviving on its own) is terminated
> by other means.
Really? I've never heard of such a thing happening. Can you direct me to any resources where I can learn more about this practice?
-------------------------------------------------------
> But occasionally one of these partial-birth
> abortions is "botched" and the child is accidently
> born alive. At which point the baby (now outside
> the womb and surviving on its own) is terminated
> by other means.
Really? I've never heard of such a thing happening. Can you direct me to any resources where I can learn more about this practice?
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
Needless Legislation
()
Date: February 28, 2012 03:34PM
Smoking gun? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Curious Me Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Why would infants born alive need to have their
> > rights protected?
> >
> > If the child is born, it's born. Murder is
> > already illegal (and, as I understand it,
> widely
> > frowned upon).
>
> In a perfect world, this would be true.
>
> But occasionally one of these partial-birth
> abortions is "botched" and the child is accidently
> born alive. At which point the baby (now outside
> the womb and surviving on its own) is terminated
> by other means.
If this practice is already illegal, because it's murder, how would an additional law, banning this particular form of murder, further protect anyone's right?
The Illinois Senate Bill that Obama voted against soundds to me like pure political grandstanding by the anti-abortion faction.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Curious Me Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Why would infants born alive need to have their
> > rights protected?
> >
> > If the child is born, it's born. Murder is
> > already illegal (and, as I understand it,
> widely
> > frowned upon).
>
> In a perfect world, this would be true.
>
> But occasionally one of these partial-birth
> abortions is "botched" and the child is accidently
> born alive. At which point the baby (now outside
> the womb and surviving on its own) is terminated
> by other means.
If this practice is already illegal, because it's murder, how would an additional law, banning this particular form of murder, further protect anyone's right?
The Illinois Senate Bill that Obama voted against soundds to me like pure political grandstanding by the anti-abortion faction.
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 28, 2012 03:48PM
Go ahead and read it... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Blaze is just a news aggregator. It links to
> other news sites, it doesn't create content.
>
> The case for "after birth" abortion is moronic to
> be sure, but its being argued by 2 university
> professors in a supposedly respectable medical
> publication. And they were being serious.
>
> A link to the full text of the article is provided
> if you'd like to read it.
I'm sure I'll read their actual article when I have more time.
It's a brilliant ethical question to ask, especially when you get into the "what is a person" aspect of it. Based on the Blaze article though, it looks like they're drawing their conclusion based on the emotional, financial, and mental toll a child can have on a parent, and saying it's the same as the emotional, financial, and mental toll that a parent anticipates having while pregnant with a fetus (and uses to justify having a normal abortion).
On the surface, yes, the same principles do apply; terminate the baby before it grows up to preserve the quality of your own life and to not bring a new life into the world that you're not equipped to handle. In a completely objective and clinical way, it makes perfect sense. However, in a completely objective and clinical way, it would also make perfect sense to eradicate the populations of poor or third-world countries to free up the resources for everyone else.
I'm not going to say the idea is cruel or sick. I'm just going to say that I'm a part of the vast, vast majority that would not wait until the baby is born to abort it.
We're almost there now Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If there's a "need" for late term and
> partial-birth abortions then after-birth abortions
> can't be far behind.
>
> And the stigma doesn't need to be removed. Being
> a fuck-up SHOULD have a stigma attached. A big
> one.
That proves one of my points. Every woman who has an abortion isn't some fuck-up whore who thought unprotected sex would be awesome and have no consequences. There are a lot of reasons for abortions. But, because of the moral outrage of the perceived "evil" of abortion, some people have a kid and raise it when they're not prepared to because of the stigma surrounding abortion.
For some reason, our society thinks it's a good and noble thing when a teenage girl sticks through her pregnancy and tries to raise her unwanted child, but it's evil when a woman has an abortion because she knows she's not fully equipped to raise a child at the moment.
For me, the latter is the right thing to do. Having a baby is one of the biggest responsibilities you can take on since, aside from just making sure the thing lives to adulthood, you also have to make sure it doesn't grow up to be a total loser. I'd much rather see someone kill a month-old fetus before it's even developed a brain to transmit pain signals to than bring the kid full-term so it can live in poverty. You can't eat morals.
Bringing it back to the point, if more people were willing and able to have early-stage abortions, there's be very little need for late-term or after-birth abortions.
tk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hey eesh...sounds like you would agree with the
> actions of WWII nazi germany then.
Godwin's Law kicked in earlier than I thought it would...
The WWII Nazis and Japanese contributed the bulk of what we know about the anatomy and physical limitations of humans. Objectively, what they did was necessary to the advancement of modern medicine. Subjectively, they're a bunch of sick fucks.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Blaze is just a news aggregator. It links to
> other news sites, it doesn't create content.
>
> The case for "after birth" abortion is moronic to
> be sure, but its being argued by 2 university
> professors in a supposedly respectable medical
> publication. And they were being serious.
>
> A link to the full text of the article is provided
> if you'd like to read it.
I'm sure I'll read their actual article when I have more time.
It's a brilliant ethical question to ask, especially when you get into the "what is a person" aspect of it. Based on the Blaze article though, it looks like they're drawing their conclusion based on the emotional, financial, and mental toll a child can have on a parent, and saying it's the same as the emotional, financial, and mental toll that a parent anticipates having while pregnant with a fetus (and uses to justify having a normal abortion).
On the surface, yes, the same principles do apply; terminate the baby before it grows up to preserve the quality of your own life and to not bring a new life into the world that you're not equipped to handle. In a completely objective and clinical way, it makes perfect sense. However, in a completely objective and clinical way, it would also make perfect sense to eradicate the populations of poor or third-world countries to free up the resources for everyone else.
I'm not going to say the idea is cruel or sick. I'm just going to say that I'm a part of the vast, vast majority that would not wait until the baby is born to abort it.
We're almost there now Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If there's a "need" for late term and
> partial-birth abortions then after-birth abortions
> can't be far behind.
>
> And the stigma doesn't need to be removed. Being
> a fuck-up SHOULD have a stigma attached. A big
> one.
That proves one of my points. Every woman who has an abortion isn't some fuck-up whore who thought unprotected sex would be awesome and have no consequences. There are a lot of reasons for abortions. But, because of the moral outrage of the perceived "evil" of abortion, some people have a kid and raise it when they're not prepared to because of the stigma surrounding abortion.
For some reason, our society thinks it's a good and noble thing when a teenage girl sticks through her pregnancy and tries to raise her unwanted child, but it's evil when a woman has an abortion because she knows she's not fully equipped to raise a child at the moment.
For me, the latter is the right thing to do. Having a baby is one of the biggest responsibilities you can take on since, aside from just making sure the thing lives to adulthood, you also have to make sure it doesn't grow up to be a total loser. I'd much rather see someone kill a month-old fetus before it's even developed a brain to transmit pain signals to than bring the kid full-term so it can live in poverty. You can't eat morals.
Bringing it back to the point, if more people were willing and able to have early-stage abortions, there's be very little need for late-term or after-birth abortions.
tk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hey eesh...sounds like you would agree with the
> actions of WWII nazi germany then.
Godwin's Law kicked in earlier than I thought it would...
The WWII Nazis and Japanese contributed the bulk of what we know about the anatomy and physical limitations of humans. Objectively, what they did was necessary to the advancement of modern medicine. Subjectively, they're a bunch of sick fucks.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 28, 2012 03:50PM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry Mephisto, got to give an opposing view
> here.....
>
>
> First, these two are not the first to advocate
> after birth abortions, there was another professor
> over a decade ago in the US that supported this
> same idea.
>
>
> Earth's population will reach seven billion
> individuals this year, and the planet is already
> stretched beyond capacity to support all these
> people. More and more poor people are having
> multiple children, while affluent, educated people
> are shying away from having any children....
>
>
> Children born to poor, uneducated people rarely
> have the same opportunities in life that are given
> to children of parents with at least modest
> income. Often these poor children just perpetuate
> poverty themselves when they reach adulthood.
>
>
> Now onto children born with mental or physical
> disabilities, there are some disabilities present
> in infants that do not become obvious until days
> or weeks AFTER birth.
>
> After birth abortions are humane, sensible, and
> free these children from a life of limited
> function. It also frees the parents from the
> burden of raising these disabled children, and
> frees medical resources that can be used to treat
> more functional, normal people.
>
> Abortion, including after birth abortion, is a
> cure for perpetual poverty, and burdened medical
> and welfare systems.
I'll respond later when I have more time (wasted it all on the novel I just posted), but that's stupid and your face is stupid and as soon as I read what you're saying in detail, I'll probably end up at least half-agreeing with you. Gay lovers, and all that.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry Mephisto, got to give an opposing view
> here.....
>
>
> First, these two are not the first to advocate
> after birth abortions, there was another professor
> over a decade ago in the US that supported this
> same idea.
>
>
> Earth's population will reach seven billion
> individuals this year, and the planet is already
> stretched beyond capacity to support all these
> people. More and more poor people are having
> multiple children, while affluent, educated people
> are shying away from having any children....
>
>
> Children born to poor, uneducated people rarely
> have the same opportunities in life that are given
> to children of parents with at least modest
> income. Often these poor children just perpetuate
> poverty themselves when they reach adulthood.
>
>
> Now onto children born with mental or physical
> disabilities, there are some disabilities present
> in infants that do not become obvious until days
> or weeks AFTER birth.
>
> After birth abortions are humane, sensible, and
> free these children from a life of limited
> function. It also frees the parents from the
> burden of raising these disabled children, and
> frees medical resources that can be used to treat
> more functional, normal people.
>
> Abortion, including after birth abortion, is a
> cure for perpetual poverty, and burdened medical
> and welfare systems.
I'll respond later when I have more time (wasted it all on the novel I just posted), but that's stupid and your face is stupid and as soon as I read what you're saying in detail, I'll probably end up at least half-agreeing with you. Gay lovers, and all that.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
tk
()
Date: February 28, 2012 05:21PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
>
> Godwin's Law kicked in earlier than I thought it
> would...
call it godwin's if you want...but i'm not making an analogy here. just trying to point out that this is the exact same thing. the nazis didn't start with the jews. they started with the sick and disabled.
>
> The WWII Nazis and Japanese contributed the bulk
> of what we know about the anatomy and physical
> limitations of humans. Objectively, what they did
> was necessary to the advancement of modern
> medicine.
so you're saying it was worth it? how do we know that these advancements couldn't have come about some other way?
just like who are we to know that a child born in poverty or with a physical defect can't rise above it? we get to decide one's fate because we *might* know how they'll turn out?
>
> Godwin's Law kicked in earlier than I thought it
> would...
call it godwin's if you want...but i'm not making an analogy here. just trying to point out that this is the exact same thing. the nazis didn't start with the jews. they started with the sick and disabled.
>
> The WWII Nazis and Japanese contributed the bulk
> of what we know about the anatomy and physical
> limitations of humans. Objectively, what they did
> was necessary to the advancement of modern
> medicine.
so you're saying it was worth it? how do we know that these advancements couldn't have come about some other way?
just like who are we to know that a child born in poverty or with a physical defect can't rise above it? we get to decide one's fate because we *might* know how they'll turn out?
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
hey all you guys
()
Date: February 28, 2012 05:26PM
Unless you can get pregnant you need to STFU!
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
abortion is murder
()
Date: February 28, 2012 05:56PM
MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Blaze is either a hardcore right-wing rag, or
> a news parody site. I honestly can't tell.
>
> If this is a legitimate article about real things
> in the real world, then it's a really stupid idea
> that people are just using to push their own
> agenda. Their argument is basically, "A fetus is a
> potential person, not an actual person, and a
> newborn baby shares the same qualities as a fetus,
> so a newborn baby is not an actual person." It's
> hard to take someone's opinion seriously when they
> ask you to make no distinction between a clump of
> cells that has no heart and cannot breathe and a
> crying, pooping newborn baby.
>
> They use Down Syndrome as an example, but most
> modernized nations can tell if a baby has severe
> congenital defects before it's past the point
> where abortion is no longer practical. They're
> also saying that the "after-birth abortion" should
> be used if the baby presents exceptional hardships
> to the family, but that just creates a stupid
> paradox; it's a lot cheaper and easier to get a
> couple tests and decide to abort than it is to
> carry the child full-term, so there wouldn't be
> any need for "after-birth abortions" if the social
> and religious stigma of abortion was removed.
>
> Someone could easily argue the other side of this
> moronic argument by saying that if abortions are
> outlawed, so should minor surgeries such as a
> tonsilectomy or appendectomy. If clumps of growing
> and dividing cells have the same right as humans,
> then who are you to deny the "right to life" for
> individual organs?
>
> It really is a shame, though:
>
>
>
> She's really cute, but not cute enough to get away
> with being this dumb.
This post is truely idiotic.
Im glad you think killing a baby is the same as getting as minor surgery. Its hard to take someones opinion seriously when they think fetuses are just a clump of cells until they magically pop out of the woman. Hes some pictures of a fetus at 12 weeks 16 weeks and 20 weeks. All within the time frame to have an abortion and you can even have them after that. Tell me how this is just a clump of cells.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Blaze is either a hardcore right-wing rag, or
> a news parody site. I honestly can't tell.
>
> If this is a legitimate article about real things
> in the real world, then it's a really stupid idea
> that people are just using to push their own
> agenda. Their argument is basically, "A fetus is a
> potential person, not an actual person, and a
> newborn baby shares the same qualities as a fetus,
> so a newborn baby is not an actual person." It's
> hard to take someone's opinion seriously when they
> ask you to make no distinction between a clump of
> cells that has no heart and cannot breathe and a
> crying, pooping newborn baby.
>
> They use Down Syndrome as an example, but most
> modernized nations can tell if a baby has severe
> congenital defects before it's past the point
> where abortion is no longer practical. They're
> also saying that the "after-birth abortion" should
> be used if the baby presents exceptional hardships
> to the family, but that just creates a stupid
> paradox; it's a lot cheaper and easier to get a
> couple tests and decide to abort than it is to
> carry the child full-term, so there wouldn't be
> any need for "after-birth abortions" if the social
> and religious stigma of abortion was removed.
>
> Someone could easily argue the other side of this
> moronic argument by saying that if abortions are
> outlawed, so should minor surgeries such as a
> tonsilectomy or appendectomy. If clumps of growing
> and dividing cells have the same right as humans,
> then who are you to deny the "right to life" for
> individual organs?
>
> It really is a shame, though:
>
>
>
> She's really cute, but not cute enough to get away
> with being this dumb.
This post is truely idiotic.
Im glad you think killing a baby is the same as getting as minor surgery. Its hard to take someones opinion seriously when they think fetuses are just a clump of cells until they magically pop out of the woman. Hes some pictures of a fetus at 12 weeks 16 weeks and 20 weeks. All within the time frame to have an abortion and you can even have them after that. Tell me how this is just a clump of cells.
Attachments:
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: February 28, 2012 05:59PM
tk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hey eesh...sounds like you would agree with the
> actions of WWII nazi germany then.
Blessed are the murderous.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hey eesh...sounds like you would agree with the
> actions of WWII nazi germany then.
Blessed are the murderous.
Attachments:
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: February 28, 2012 06:04PM
tk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
>
> >
> > Godwin's Law kicked in earlier than I thought
> it
> > would...
>
> call it godwin's if you want...but i'm not making
> an analogy here. just trying to point out that
> this is the exact same thing. the nazis didn't
> start with the jews. they started with the sick
> and disabled.
>
> >
> > The WWII Nazis and Japanese contributed the
> bulk
> > of what we know about the anatomy and physical
> > limitations of humans. Objectively, what they
> did
> > was necessary to the advancement of modern
> > medicine.
>
> so you're saying it was worth it? how do we know
> that these advancements couldn't have come about
> some other way?
>
> just like who are we to know that a child born in
> poverty or with a physical defect can't rise above
> it? we get to decide one's fate because we
> *might* know how they'll turn out?
Fun Fact! All modern knowledge on the treatment of hypothermia comes from Nazi experiments on humans.
It's why animal rights activists oppose animal experimentation, because it is so unrealistic and unproductive to use data from experiments on rats and cats and dogs and apply it to humans.
Just imagine if we cleared out all our prisons of child molesters, MS-13 members, rapists, etc. and sent them to cancer research institutes, think of the medical knowledge that could be gained.
No joke.
Blessed are the murderous.
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
>
> >
> > Godwin's Law kicked in earlier than I thought
> it
> > would...
>
> call it godwin's if you want...but i'm not making
> an analogy here. just trying to point out that
> this is the exact same thing. the nazis didn't
> start with the jews. they started with the sick
> and disabled.
>
> >
> > The WWII Nazis and Japanese contributed the
> bulk
> > of what we know about the anatomy and physical
> > limitations of humans. Objectively, what they
> did
> > was necessary to the advancement of modern
> > medicine.
>
> so you're saying it was worth it? how do we know
> that these advancements couldn't have come about
> some other way?
>
> just like who are we to know that a child born in
> poverty or with a physical defect can't rise above
> it? we get to decide one's fate because we
> *might* know how they'll turn out?
Fun Fact! All modern knowledge on the treatment of hypothermia comes from Nazi experiments on humans.
It's why animal rights activists oppose animal experimentation, because it is so unrealistic and unproductive to use data from experiments on rats and cats and dogs and apply it to humans.
Just imagine if we cleared out all our prisons of child molesters, MS-13 members, rapists, etc. and sent them to cancer research institutes, think of the medical knowledge that could be gained.
No joke.
Blessed are the murderous.
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 28, 2012 09:09PM
At the risk of turning this into a thread about Nazis...
tk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> call it godwin's if you want...but i'm not making
> an analogy here. just trying to point out that
> this is the exact same thing. the nazis didn't
> start with the jews. they started with the sick
> and disabled.
We're not talking about Jewish, sick, or disabled babies (specifically). Also for this to be a closer parallel to Nazi Germany, the government would have to start mandating which babies would be aborted post-birth. No comparison.
> so you're saying it was worth it? how do we know
> that these advancements couldn't have come about
> some other way?
Hypothermia, as eesh pointed out, is a good example. Until the Nazis and WWII Japanese (don't forget about those guys), nobody had really done any clinical studies on the start-to-finish effects of freezing to death. The only way to get that data was to just toss a motherfucker into ice cold water and watch what happens.
You don't have to agree with the methodology to acknowledge the results, you know. The US Government knew that, which is why the scientists of Unit 731 were granted war crimes immunity in exchange for their test data.
> just like who are we to know that a child born in
> poverty or with a physical defect can't rise above
> it? we get to decide one's fate because we
> *might* know how they'll turn out?
NOBODY is deciding the fate except the mother of the child. You make it sound like after-birth abortions are going to become US Government policy. That's the mother of all knee-jerk reactions; two Aussies write a paper for a medical journal about why it's ethically OK to abort babies after they are born, and you make it sound like the next step is to round up everyone with a birth defect and drown them. That is hardly the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
tk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> call it godwin's if you want...but i'm not making
> an analogy here. just trying to point out that
> this is the exact same thing. the nazis didn't
> start with the jews. they started with the sick
> and disabled.
We're not talking about Jewish, sick, or disabled babies (specifically). Also for this to be a closer parallel to Nazi Germany, the government would have to start mandating which babies would be aborted post-birth. No comparison.
> so you're saying it was worth it? how do we know
> that these advancements couldn't have come about
> some other way?
Hypothermia, as eesh pointed out, is a good example. Until the Nazis and WWII Japanese (don't forget about those guys), nobody had really done any clinical studies on the start-to-finish effects of freezing to death. The only way to get that data was to just toss a motherfucker into ice cold water and watch what happens.
You don't have to agree with the methodology to acknowledge the results, you know. The US Government knew that, which is why the scientists of Unit 731 were granted war crimes immunity in exchange for their test data.
> just like who are we to know that a child born in
> poverty or with a physical defect can't rise above
> it? we get to decide one's fate because we
> *might* know how they'll turn out?
NOBODY is deciding the fate except the mother of the child. You make it sound like after-birth abortions are going to become US Government policy. That's the mother of all knee-jerk reactions; two Aussies write a paper for a medical journal about why it's ethically OK to abort babies after they are born, and you make it sound like the next step is to round up everyone with a birth defect and drown them. That is hardly the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 28, 2012 09:19PM
abortion is murder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This post is truely idiotic.
Oh, truely.
> Im glad you think killing a baby is the same as
> getting as minor surgery. Its hard to take
> someones opinion seriously when they think fetuses
> are just a clump of cells until they magically pop
> out of the woman. Hes some pictures of a fetus at
> 12 weeks 16 weeks and 20 weeks. All within the
> time frame to have an abortion and you can even
> have them after that. Tell me how this is just a
> clump of cells.
You can find out if you're pregnant within days of missing your period, so in my mind, there's no reason to let it go 12, 16, or 20 weeks. In the couple weeks following the union of sperm and egg, the fetus is just a clump of cells. No features, nothing. Just a tiny little blob. If removing a three week-old fetus is murder, then so is having your appendix removed. At three weeks, the fetus has more in common with a vestigial organ than it does a person: No brain, no heart, no ability to live outside the host, nothing.
If modern sex education was taught in schools and people just minded their own business, abortions after the first trimester would be rare and this whole issue would be moot.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> This post is truely idiotic.
Oh, truely.
> Im glad you think killing a baby is the same as
> getting as minor surgery. Its hard to take
> someones opinion seriously when they think fetuses
> are just a clump of cells until they magically pop
> out of the woman. Hes some pictures of a fetus at
> 12 weeks 16 weeks and 20 weeks. All within the
> time frame to have an abortion and you can even
> have them after that. Tell me how this is just a
> clump of cells.
You can find out if you're pregnant within days of missing your period, so in my mind, there's no reason to let it go 12, 16, or 20 weeks. In the couple weeks following the union of sperm and egg, the fetus is just a clump of cells. No features, nothing. Just a tiny little blob. If removing a three week-old fetus is murder, then so is having your appendix removed. At three weeks, the fetus has more in common with a vestigial organ than it does a person: No brain, no heart, no ability to live outside the host, nothing.
If modern sex education was taught in schools and people just minded their own business, abortions after the first trimester would be rare and this whole issue would be moot.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Re: "After-Birth Abortions"....and idea who's time has come
Posted by:
MrMephisto
()
Date: February 28, 2012 09:31PM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry Mephisto, got to give an opposing view
> here.....
>
>
> First, these two are not the first to advocate
> after birth abortions, there was another professor
> over a decade ago in the US that supported this
> same idea.
>
>
> Earth's population will reach seven billion
> individuals this year, and the planet is already
> stretched beyond capacity to support all these
> people. More and more poor people are having
> multiple children, while affluent, educated people
> are shying away from having any children....
>
>
> Children born to poor, uneducated people rarely
> have the same opportunities in life that are given
> to children of parents with at least modest
> income. Often these poor children just perpetuate
> poverty themselves when they reach adulthood.
I can agree with all of this.
> Now onto children born with mental or physical
> disabilities, there are some disabilities present
> in infants that do not become obvious until days
> or weeks AFTER birth.
>
> After birth abortions are humane, sensible, and
> free these children from a life of limited
> function. It also frees the parents from the
> burden of raising these disabled children, and
> frees medical resources that can be used to treat
> more functional, normal people.
>
> Abortion, including after birth abortion, is a
> cure for perpetual poverty, and burdened medical
> and welfare systems.
I can agree with this to an extent. If the child had a medical condition that would guarantee it a life of pain and misery, then yes... What is the best choice for everyone involved, including the baby? Sure, there's the rare underdog story of the happy, successful person who wasn't expected to live past age 2, but one person out of a billion is not enough to argue against it.
On the other hand, after-birth abortion has no advantage over first trimester abortion. My main concern if after-birth abortions were allowed would be people using it as the easy way out. As in, the child could grow up healthy, happy, and normal with a little extra medical attention, but that's too inconvenient for the parent(s). If the child has a post-birth condition that's going to kill it anyway, the parents can just refuse treatment and let nature take its course. Like that little girl who was born without a face; spending that much time and money to make sure she lives is, to me, more monstrous than just letting her die as a baby.
Still, this is all just an ethical debate. The reality is that there's very small percentage of the population who would bring a child full-term, deliver it, then decide to kill it.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry Mephisto, got to give an opposing view
> here.....
>
>
> First, these two are not the first to advocate
> after birth abortions, there was another professor
> over a decade ago in the US that supported this
> same idea.
>
>
> Earth's population will reach seven billion
> individuals this year, and the planet is already
> stretched beyond capacity to support all these
> people. More and more poor people are having
> multiple children, while affluent, educated people
> are shying away from having any children....
>
>
> Children born to poor, uneducated people rarely
> have the same opportunities in life that are given
> to children of parents with at least modest
> income. Often these poor children just perpetuate
> poverty themselves when they reach adulthood.
I can agree with all of this.
> Now onto children born with mental or physical
> disabilities, there are some disabilities present
> in infants that do not become obvious until days
> or weeks AFTER birth.
>
> After birth abortions are humane, sensible, and
> free these children from a life of limited
> function. It also frees the parents from the
> burden of raising these disabled children, and
> frees medical resources that can be used to treat
> more functional, normal people.
>
> Abortion, including after birth abortion, is a
> cure for perpetual poverty, and burdened medical
> and welfare systems.
I can agree with this to an extent. If the child had a medical condition that would guarantee it a life of pain and misery, then yes... What is the best choice for everyone involved, including the baby? Sure, there's the rare underdog story of the happy, successful person who wasn't expected to live past age 2, but one person out of a billion is not enough to argue against it.
On the other hand, after-birth abortion has no advantage over first trimester abortion. My main concern if after-birth abortions were allowed would be people using it as the easy way out. As in, the child could grow up healthy, happy, and normal with a little extra medical attention, but that's too inconvenient for the parent(s). If the child has a post-birth condition that's going to kill it anyway, the parents can just refuse treatment and let nature take its course. Like that little girl who was born without a face; spending that much time and money to make sure she lives is, to me, more monstrous than just letting her die as a baby.
Still, this is all just an ethical debate. The reality is that there's very small percentage of the population who would bring a child full-term, deliver it, then decide to kill it.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.