Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Killing Newborn Babies No Different To Abortion, Say Medical Ethicists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Killing Newborn Babies No Different To Abortion, Say Medical Ethicists

    Killing Newborn Babies No Different To Abortion, Say Medical Ethicists
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...n_1309985.html
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.
    == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  • #2
    Interestingly it occurred right after this incident.

    Sorority Girl Cries for Baby Thrown in Trash—But Judge Gives Her Life After Seeing Chilling Texts
    http://ijr.com/2016/06/638462-sorori...g-final-texts/
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.
    == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm not sure you got the thrust of the article:


      "Responding to the backlash, the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, has defended the article, claiming that the arguments presented are not new and have been presented repeatedly in academic literature for years... 'The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests... Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well-reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.

      'The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a foetus and a newborn.
      .
      .
      .
      'It has subsequently been suggested to me that people whose lives might have been ended by ‘after-birth abortion’ were this legal, might be deeply offended by this paper.

      'If that is the case I am sorry, but I am also confident that many of these people are equally capable of mounting a robust academic reply to the paper which, again subject to peer-review, the Journal of Medical Ethics will be very willing to consider for publication.'”


      It also noted that infanticide is practiced in the Netherlands, among other places. Indeed, one argument for liberal abortion laws is to reduce the incidence of infanticide.

      The replies to this article should be interesting.

      Comment


      • #4
        Oh, I got the thrust of the article just fine.

        And frankly, it would be a perfectly "reasonable" (you know, for the fucking wacko-crazy end of "reasonable") way to permit Men to abort their children.

        So she carries it for 9 months and goes through all the delivery pain-- and then *HE* gets *HIS* chance to weigh in on the "Life or Death" issue.

        Seems fair to me (*)

        This is what happens when we let WOMEN, and WOMEN ALONE arbitrate life and death through abortion. Once we start down that slippery slope, we can make the argument at any time that any individual should be taken out-- that it's in someone else's "best interest" for them not to live, and yada yada yada--- and in one fell swoop we'll solve the problem of "Murder" (just won't be a thing any more), overcrowding, handicaps and birth defects, noisy neighbors, ex-boyfriends (and girlfriends), troublesome debt collectors, demanding bosses, and a whole host of other societal issues that we've all just gritted our teeth over previously.

        Oh, it would also make a terrific justification for reducing one half of the population to approximately 10% of existing levels...



        (*) No it doesn't-- it's fucking delusional!
        FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
        It's time to call it out for what it is.
        == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


        The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
        http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

        Comment


        • #5
          No, you completely missed it.

          The paper was not advocating infanticide, it was an academic argument about ethics. As it pointed out, this is not a new discussion, by any stretch of the imagination. The only "new" part of the argument is the comparison of abortion to murder, which fails on strictly traditional grounds.

          As for who is in control of the choice, I don't see an issue; very few women engage in sex-selective abortion. For that matter, very few women have abortions, at all, and the rate has gone down for the last 35 years.

          The "problem" largely solves itself.

          Comment


          • #6
            The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.

            What is the purpose of this sentence, other than making it sound as if infanticide is LEGAL in the Netherlands? Which it definitely isn't. Infanticide is practiced the world round, but I don't know in which countries is is actually legal. I'd wager none?

            Comment


            • #7
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_Protocol

              "The Groningen Protocol is a text created in September 2004 by Eduard Verhagen, the medical director of the department of pediatrics at the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG) in Groningen, the Netherlands. It contains directives with criteria under which physicians can perform "active ending of life on infants" (child euthanasia) without fear of legal prosecution.
              .
              .
              .
              Case law has so far protected physicians from prosecution as long as they act in accordance with the protocol"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_Protocol

                "The Groningen Protocol is a text created in September 2004 by Eduard Verhagen, the medical director of the department of pediatrics at the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG) in Groningen, the Netherlands. It contains directives with criteria under which physicians can perform "active ending of life on infants" (child euthanasia) without fear of legal prosecution.
                .
                .
                .
                Case law has so far protected physicians from prosecution as long as they act in accordance with the protocol"
                That's euthanasia, not infanticide.

                It's a doctor not getting sued for turning off the life support of an infant that after extensive and prolongued consultation and procedures to help it, has proven to be suffering from an incurable, terminal, deteriorating/painful condition.

                versus

                actively killing a viable baby/ turning off the life support of a baby that has a good chance to pull through.

                Of course, these are difficult situations for both doctors and parents, and a doctor always retains the right to refuse to pull the life support.

                These types of legislations are necessary to avoid that doctors refuse to perform any form of euthanasia out of fear of being prosecuted, resulting in non-viable/terminally ill infants needlessly suffering.

                Pretty misleading article, if it's using words like infanticide where euthanasia is meant.
                Last edited by Berne; 06-29-2016, 08:20 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
                  No, you completely missed it.

                  The paper was not advocating infanticide, it was an academic argument about ethics. As it pointed out, this is not a new discussion, by any stretch of the imagination. The only "new" part of the argument is the comparison of abortion to murder, which fails on strictly traditional grounds.

                  As for who is in control of the choice, I don't see an issue; very few women engage in sex-selective abortion. For that matter, very few women have abortions, at all, and the rate has gone down for the last 35 years.

                  The "problem" largely solves itself.
                  The abortion rate has gone done but I wouldn't equate that with 'very few women have abortions.' That's a false statement.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
                    No, you completely missed it.

                    The paper was not advocating infanticide, it was an academic argument about ethics. As it pointed out, this is not a new discussion, by any stretch of the imagination. The only "new" part of the argument is the comparison of abortion to murder, which fails on strictly traditional grounds.

                    As for who is in control of the choice, I don't see an issue; very few women engage in sex-selective abortion. For that matter, very few women have abortions, at all, and the rate has gone down for the last 35 years.

                    The "problem" largely solves itself.

                    No, I haven't missed it at all. There is no difference between arguing the ethics and advocating for the practice. If your argument regarding the ethics says that it's okay-- the rest is simply a plan which hasn't been implemented yet.

                    Your suggestion that women don't *currently* have sex-selective abortions does not mean that they won't.

                    BTW, women (world wide) *do* currently have sex-selective abortions-- however, at the moment, they tend disfavor girls over boys. So I guess there is that.
                    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                    It's time to call it out for what it is.
                    == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


                    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
                    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Deidre View Post
                      The abortion rate has gone done but I wouldn't equate that with 'very few women have abortions.' That's a false statement.
                      I'd love to see hard figures; I've looked, and the data is ridiculous, mostly because neither side of the argument can decide whether it's better to over- or underestimate the number. About the only thing they all agree on is that it needs to be one or the other.

                      I took the raw data and did a rough model, and by my math, about 1 in 6 women has an abortion in her lifetime, and as you note, that is going down.

                      My point was that, since there have been fewer unwanted children in the last 40 years, fewer young women are growing up with poor role models and finding themselves in the same situation. That's what I meant by, "It largely solves itself."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                        There is no difference between arguing the ethics and advocating for the practice.
                        Yes, there absolutely is!

                        See our debate about gun control for a prime example.


                        Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                        BTW, women (world wide) *do* currently have sex-selective abortions-- however, at the moment, they tend disfavor girls over boys. So I guess there is that.
                        And THAT is actually infanticide, not abortion, at least in most places where it still happens.

                        Most agrarian societies that favor males don't have access to medical abortion, or even the knowledge of whether they are having a boy or a girl until birth.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
                          I'd love to see hard figures; I've looked, and the data is ridiculous, mostly because neither side of the argument can decide whether it's better to over- or underestimate the number. About the only thing they all agree on is that it needs to be one or the other.

                          I took the raw data and did a rough model, and by my math, about 1 in 6 women has an abortion in her lifetime, and as you note, that is going down.

                          My point was that, since there have been fewer unwanted children in the last 40 years, fewer young women are growing up with poor role models and finding themselves in the same situation. That's what I meant by, "It largely solves itself."
                          http://www.abortionno.org/abortion-facts/

                          You might need to redefine the term 'few.' lol

                          These are some interesting facts too:

                          https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-shee...FRFahgod2NMJ_A

                          Few isn't the word that comes to mind, though.
                          Last edited by Deidre; 06-30-2016, 10:56 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Deidre View Post
                            http://www.abortionno.org/abortion-facts/

                            You might need to redefine the term 'few.' lol

                            These are some interesting facts too:

                            https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-shee...FRFahgod2NMJ_A

                            Few isn't the word that comes to mind, though.

                            I've seen both of those figures, and both of them are widely criticized for miscounting women who have multiple abortions and extrapolating from a limited data set (they assumed the 2008 abortion rate was the standard rate, past and future).

                            Again, neither side can seem to agree on whether more or fewer women having abortions is good for their argument.


                            As for, "few," if you had a random sample of 100 women in a room, maybe 15 of them will have had an abortion. How do you define, "few?"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Multiple abortions don't count?

                              Millions of babies have been aborted...that's not a few. Since abortion became legal to present day, 55+ million abortions have transpired. That's not a few. It is decreasing, but I still wouldn't say that 'few women' have abortions, today. FewER - maybe that might be a better term, but it's still a misleading word to represent something so ominous.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X