Woman chooses 11th Trimester Abortion

[metalman]

"after birth abortion"
having a child is unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman of an "after birth fetus".

mother decapitates son, kills herself

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

"When circumstances occur "after birth" such that they would have justified abortion, an "after-birth abortion" should be permissible. Neither fetus nor baby has developed a sufficient sense of his own life to know what it would be like to be deprived of it."

"You have to get to the infant before he develops “those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

It’s a race against time.

 

[the_leander]

"after birth abortion"
having a child is unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman of an "after birth fetus".

mother decapitates son, kills herself

A woman suffering severe mental illness murders her newborn... Any particular reason you're trying to tie this into abortion? Or are you just intent on getting this years Lord Elizabeth Fuckwitt Trophy?

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Holy shit you actually went there. Even after it was explained to you, in terms that even a child could understand, the purpose of that paper.

It’s a race against time.

Honestly it's gotten to the stage now where I'm not sure if you're just trolling for kicks or really are this much of a cunt.

 

[metalman]

Holy shit you actually went there. Even after it was explained to you, in terms that even a child could understand, the purpose of that paper.

In "The Journal of Medical Ethics"

the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

A woman suffering severe mental illness murders her newborn.

A woman preforms an "after birth abortion" of her 2 year old son

She obviously decided that

we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.

Woman's right to choose



FORWARD to the new world of atheist morality

 

[the_leander]

Heh, about a year ago, Red put up a similar thread trying to conflate a mother killing her kid with abortion. I called him a cunt then too. In fact I believe you were also present in that thread. It was explained in ball aching detail why conflating the two was a morally reprehensible move to have done so. Red accepted this point and apologies were given in both directions. It was the decent thing to do. You on the other hand have doubled down instead.

The link you're so casually throwing around is, was and always will be a discussion piece, its purpose to make people explore their reasons for disagreeing with a particular position. Your repeated attempts to frame this as anything else says way more about you than anything else.

I really should have figured something like this was coming after the drubbing you received in the other thread. Frankly it's childish beyond words, even worse, it's one born of a lie you have repeatedly perpetuated.

And to think you had the unmitigated gall to attempt the moral high ground in that other thread.

 

[metalman]

Heh, about a year ago, Red put up a similar thread trying to conflate a mother killing her kid with abortion. I called him a cunt then too. In fact I believe you were also present in that thread. It was explained in ball aching detail why conflating the two was a morally reprehensible move to have done so. Red accepted this point and apologies were given in both directions. It was the decent thing to do. You on the other hand have doubled down instead.

The link you're so casually throwing around is, was and always will be a discussion piece, its purpose to make people explore their reasons for disagreeing with a particular position. Your repeated attempts to frame this as anything else says way more about you than anything else.

I really should have figured something like this was coming after the drubbing you received in the other thread. Frankly it's childish beyond words, even worse, it's one born of a lie you have repeatedly perpetuated.

And to think you had the unmitigated gall to attempt the moral high ground in that other thread.

pull your head out of your arse

They specifically use the term "after birth abortion" in the paper

As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend its publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.

What clubbing?? You're really delusional, you better get out your E-meter

 

[the_leander]

pull your head out of your arse

You first sweetheart.

They specifically use the term "after birth abortion" in the paper

I've read the paper, thanks. It does not change it's purpose, which is not, despite your best attempts to claim otherwise an actual recommendation.

But you're too busy trying to score points by these childish theatrics to bother with little things like the truth. Like I said, saw something like this coming when you had each and every single point soundly rebutted in the other thread. With you it really is like clockwork.

What clubbing??

I'm guessing an autoreplace brainfart for this one. History really isn't your strong suit butercup.

You're really delusional, you better get out your E-meter

My what a shiny shiny mirror you have there.

 

[metalman]

I've read the paper, thanks. It does not change it's purpose, which is not, despite your best attempts to claim otherwise an actual recommendation.

Well your either a {bleep} idiot or incapable of comprehension, probably both

Conclusions
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

Like I said, saw something like this coming when you had each and every single point soundly rebutted in the other thread.

Which body thetan told you that?

 

[the_leander]

Well your either a {bleep} idiot or incapable of comprehension, probably both

As I said, I've read it, it was and remains a paper designed to challenge opinion rather than become practice, see, in academia, as a learning tool a professor might adopt a morally reprehensible position and then challenge his or her students to attack it, the purpose being to force the students in question to improve their reasoning. The only groups attempting to paint this as some form of manifesto are the far right. But by all means, feel free to find a prominent member of the atheist community that does agree with it.

Attempting to pin this as a stated aim of Atheism is a flat out lie. Attempting to do so by conflating it with the tragedy of a mentally ill mother killing her child is about as outrageous a thing as has ever been posted on this forum, it tops your previous effort by quite some margin.

Which body thetan told you that?

Not being a Scientologist I wouldn't know.

I'm going to exit this thread now, I'll also be putting you on ignore from here on out. No good can come of this.

 

[faethor]

@Metalman,

This is more rightly in philosophy rather than politics. The Ethics Paper was just that. A philophical work to make people think and challenge ideas. There is no political party (at least not the major 2) accepting that Ethical Paper as a realistic operational model for society.

This woman was clearly psychologically impacted. There's nothing here to tell us that she was or was not an atheist. You've simply created a multiple layered strawman. There are no atheists I know of that are demanding we kill people after birth.



Also killing babies has been done in the name of Christ. For example, Priests educated (I thought it was Central America but would have to track it down again) the population about the importance of baptism and how the baby's soul is the most perfect after this event. The Christians in the area translated this to mean the baby will get into heaven for sure. And since heaven is the most perfect place for eternity they thought it good to bash babies against a wall after baptism. Essentially a 'get into heaven free' card was played. Sure the parent may go to hell but their babies are forever happy in heaven. And afterall as a parent we all want our kids to be happy. What can be worth more than an eternity of happiness? Some Christians read this a bit too literally. "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalms 137:9)

Further more we have cases where parents pray for their infants to be saved instead of getting them medical attention. There are a number of cases here in America in the 21st Century where Christian Scientists (mostly but not exclusively) don't give their kids the diabetes treatments or seek medical attention when they should. Because they think prayer is going to save the kid's life. They've turned out wrong. And some of these parents are now, rightly, in prision.

Do atheists do bad things? Sure. However, being religious doesn't exempt someone from doing bad things. Instead when the bad things do happen the religious excuse it as okay because they believe they were doing God's will. And unfortunately this immorality assigned from a diety does allow some to get away with it.

 

[Glaucus]

Metalman's post has nothing to do with philosophy. When a battle stagnates, a great way to kick things up again is to open up a new front. The abortion debate has dragged on for so long and with no clear end in sight so it was due for a new front. This is really just a faint double pincer move, one designed to draw out their opponents and make them look bad on two fronts: atheists and pro-abortionists are linked by their murderous ways. The innocent casualty here of course are people suffering from mental illness as they too are lumped in but who cares about them?

 

[metalman]

As I said, I've read it, it was and remains a paper designed to challenge opinion rather than become practice, see, in academia, as a learning tool a professor might adopt a morally reprehensible position and then challenge his or her students to attack it, the purpose being to force the students in question to improve their reasoning. .

This paper was not a "learning tool" but a serious academic recommendation for medical ethics and the law

Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features original articles on ethical aspects of health care

The article is tagged

Law, ethics and medicine

This article will be soon be sited in court documents as a defence for women who kill their children

Don't miss the DNC convention "celebration of abortion" starting September 3rd.

Attempting to pin this as a stated aim of Atheism is a flat out lie. Attempting to do so by conflating it with the tragedy of a mentally ill mother killing her child is about as outrageous a thing as has ever been posted on this forum, it tops your previous effort by quite some margin.

Atheism aim is to remove the "invisible sky spirit", e.g. God from public policy, however this also as a consequence removes christian morality from public policy.

What morality of Atheism says that an "after birth abortion" is wrong? As long as a woman decides, who are you to denigrate her mental state? she was being punished with a child. The well being of the family was at risk.

I'm going to exit this thread now, I'll also be putting you on ignore from here on out. No good can come of this.

Well bless your little heart!
If you don't want to debate by Argumentum ad Hominem ad Ininfitum, try being more civil next time

 

[metalman]

The innocent casualty here of course are people suffering from mental illness as they too are lumped in but who cares about them?

Its been public policy to dump the mentally ill onto the street since the 1960's because it was inhumane to hospitalize and institutionalize the mentally ill against their will

 

[Glaucus]

Its been public policy to dump the mentally ill onto the street since the 1960's because it was inhumane to hospitalize and institutionalize the mentally ill against their will

That's what they told you. The real reason is politicians realized that cutting funds to keep those institutions operating was a politically safe move. Especially when they could at the same time privatize prisons to clean up those same streets (and make a nice profit for their friends running those jails).

 

[robert l. bentham]

Its been public policy to dump the mentally ill onto the street since the 1960's because it was inhumane to hospitalize and institutionalize the mentally ill against their will

where did you get that nonsense? what an outlandish and spurious claim... every state i have ever lived in closed those facilities to slash public budgets. you should provide a link for that... i'm callin B.S.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Its been public policy to dump the mentally ill onto the street since the 1960's because it was inhumane to hospitalize and institutionalize the mentally ill against their will

It was expensive. It's much cheaper to dump them on the street - barring the externalities, of course.

 

[faethor]

This paper was not a "learning tool" but a serious academic recommendation for medical ethics and the law

Learning takes many forms. One of it's form is the discussion of ideas which may be offensive. Through this we come to discover why these reasons are offensive to us as individuals and society. Which is why this journal, and article, are "to promote ethical reflection". This article is for reflection. This sort of article is the foundation for a good elentic debate.

This article will be soon be sited in court documents as a defence for women who kill their children

Really? Please provide the evidence you have of this occuring.

Don't miss the DNC convention "celebration of abortion" starting September 3rd.

DNC - abortions should be legal, safe, and rare. Outlawing abortion does not stop this practice. Instead it makes it incredibly dangerous. While at the same time subjection women as pawns for control of the State. Many Republicans believe control by government is evil. They then argue businesses shouldn't be controlled by the State. But, most Republicans promote the idea that people, such as pregnant women, must be subjected to such State control. It's ludacris.

Atheism aim is to remove the "invisible sky spirit", e.g. God from public policy, however this also as a consequence removes christian morality from public policy.

As we're a nation for religionS this is a good thing. Our society does not and should not derive it's principles from 1 religion. (Nothing in our Constitution says please refer to the King James Bible if you have any questions. ) Instead we should be translating a morality which transcends all religions and beliefs. Not only should the Christian see good in these policies your atheist neighbor and their Muslim friend should as well. Tempering the misogynistic, racist, and homophobic tendencies of many (especially right-wing) Christians is a good thing.

What morality of Atheism says that an "after birth abortion" is wrong?

As Atheism is the understanding that there's no proof of a dietific entity. There is no comment on morality. It's akin to asking what about driving a Dodge Ram speaks to 'after birth abortion' - it makes no sense.

 

[Glaucus]

Atheism aim is to remove the "invisible sky spirit", e.g. God from public policy, however this also as a consequence removes christian morality from public policy.

This is poor logic at work. Since Christianity was a human invention (as were all the religions predating it, including the ones it was based on) the "Christian morality" was man made as well. Religion was, for some time, a handy way to spell out the moral code and to even enforce it. Religion grew to be much more than that as it also included health tips (circumcision or abstaining from pig meat had perceived health benefits that no longer apply if they ever did at all) and societal norms (including things like gender roles and even taxes). The moral code however, does not actually depend on religion and we can certainly do away with some of the extra baggage that religion lugged around with it.

 

[metalman]

This is more rightly in philosophy rather than politics. The Ethics Paper was just that. A philophical work to make people think and challenge ideas. There is no political party (at least not the major 2) accepting that Ethical Paper as a realistic operational model for society.

The Netherlands, for instance, the Groningen Protocol (2002) allows to actively terminate the life of ‘infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering’.4

This woman was clearly psychologically impacted. There's nothing here to tell us that she was or was not an atheist. You've simply created a multiple layered strawman. There are no atheists I know of that are demanding we kill people after birth.

I've merely put the paper together with an actual case, to apply the recommendations of the medical ethicist to a real case

These two authors are recommending we apply the same standards to "after birth abortion" as a to regular abortion case

Also killing babies has been done in the name of Christ. For example, Priests educated the population about the importance of baptism and how the baby's soul is the most perfect after this event. The Christians in the area translated this to mean the baby will get into heaven for sure. And since heaven is the most perfect place for eternity they thought it good to bash babies against a wall after baptism. Essentially a 'get into heaven free' card was played. Sure the parent may go to hell but their babies are forever happy in heaven. And afterall as a parent we all want our kids to be happy. What can be worth more than an eternity of happiness? Some Christians read this a bit too literally. "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalms 137:9)

I doubt the story
anyone doing this would be considered a heretic by any mainstream denomination
3 year Lectionary cycle
Don't see a reading from Psalms 137:9 in the lectionary cycle

Further more we have cases where parents pray for their infants to be saved instead of getting them medical attention. There are a number of cases here in America in the 21st Century where Christian Scientists (mostly but not exclusively) don't give their kids the diabetes treatments or seek medical attention when they should. Because they think prayer is going to save the kid's life. They've turned out wrong. And some of these parents are now, rightly, in prision.

Definitely not a Christian mainstream religion

Christrian Science regard the material world as fundamentally unreal that time and materiality is illusory or to put it in secular terms, they think they live in "The Matrix"

Christian Scientists are "Very Weird", but not violent or evil. Is praying to remove the illusion of disease worse than aborting a fetus in the 3rd Trimester?

Barack Obama thinks abortion should be legal in all situations, even late in pregnancy:

However, being religious doesn't exempt someone from doing bad things. Instead when the bad things do happen the religious excuse it as okay because they believe they were doing God's will. And unfortunately this immorality assigned from a diety does allow some to get away with it.

The religious believe that punishment is required for those who do bad things. Those being punished may after reflection and remorse ask gods forgiveness for those they harmed, but it's not a "get out of jail free" card

 

[metalman]

abortions should be legal, safe, and rare.

There is no reason that abortion should not be a rare event with modern contraceptives

I'mNotSorryNet where women can share their positive experiences with abortion.

Their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, ...

 

[redrumloa]

Heh, about a year ago, Red put up a similar thread trying to conflate a mother killing her kid with abortion. I called him a cunt then too. In fact I believe you were also present in that thread. It was explained in ball aching detail why conflating the two was a morally reprehensible move to have done so. Red accepted this point and apologies were given in both directions. It was the decent thing to do. You on the other hand have doubled down instead.

Mostly yes, but let's not go crazy here

The ethics article is exactly what it is, endorsing post birth abortion. Claiming otherwise is just sticking your head in the sand. If a paper claimed the sky to be blue and explained why the sky was blue, would you argue it was only philosophical and does not mean literally the sky is blue? I have 2 word for you.

AGENDA 21​