For the_leander and RBL

[redrumloa]

Here you go the_leander

That reply was in response to me posting this.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, 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.

And the response from RBL

And how exactly do you perform an after-birth-abortion? Oh, right.. Smother with a pillow or slit their throat. Any way you do it won't be pretty.

You guys support this, so don't get angry when it is thrown back in your face. You can't have it both ways.

 

[the_leander]

Here you go the_leander

That reply was in response to me posting this.

Yes, and?

Answer the question I posed to you.

Last chance on this one.

And the response from RBL

And how exactly do you perform an after-birth-abortion? Oh, right.. Smother with a pillow or slit their throat. Any way you do it won't be pretty.

Most abortions that late term would involve the foetus being injected with something to kill it pre birth. Anything else is damned sloppy quite frankly.

You guys support this, so don't get angry when it is thrown back in your face. You can't have it both ways.

What's that you always say at this point? Oh yes, Bzzzt, wrong, but thanks for playing. I pointed you specifically to a rebuttal of that very paper, I even stated in the same thread that I thought it to be a pile of horse manure.

So no, I don't and that's the second time you've thrown that at me.

It was possibly an error on your part the first time, but I clarified my position on that paper specifically which makes your claim that I support it a damned lie.

You will withdraw the accusation. Now.

 

[redrumloa]

Answer the question I posed to you.

Last chance on this one.

What is with you and straw men? Euthanasia is not legal in the United States and doctors have the ability to regulate pain.

I pointed you specifically to a rebuttal of that very paper

I cannot believe you keep pointing to that as a rebuttal. Did you actually read it?

Down’s syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’. But, in fact, people with Down’s syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, 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…

Down’s syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’. But, in fact, people with Down’s syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, 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…

How you keep pointing to this as a rebuttal is breathtaking.

It was possibly an error on your part the first time, but I clarified my position on that paper specifically which makes your claim that I support it a damned lie.

You will withdraw the accusation. Now.

Withdraw? You keep REINFORCING the idea every time you type!

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

[...] in the United States and doctors have the ability to regulate pain.

Yes, but they tend not to - on moral grounds - because of the fear that people will become addicted if given an effective dose which a) doesn't happen and b) is petty in the extreme to assume that addiction to being pain free is worse than being in constant pain.

Now, you're bull headed pursuit of blood, and that's all you are after because you refuse to take the moral high ground, is really grating and shameful. I would not use the language that RLBentham did but I can understand his outrage because you are behaving very badly.

You like to claim that not being against an unpleasant option is the same as advocating for it. You act as if not ruling late term abortion out in all cases is exactly the same as forcing all mothers to be to undergo late term abortions. Not only is that a logical fallacy but it is a thoroughly disrespectful thing to do.

However, you have steadfastly refused to face your moral responsibility while taking the opposite side. Before you force people to bring someone into this world who will be a burden on the caregivers are you willing to offer yourself as the caregiver? If you are not so willing then you have no moral right to expect other people to be willing. You will not answer that question because you know what the answer is - you are quite willing to force your idea of morals on a person you don't know and don't care about but if your wishes result in a negative outcome for those people you refuse to bear any responsibility for what you have insisted that they do. You are a petty authoritarian who likes to make rules but doesn't want to help people if the rules hurt them.

 

[Glaucus]

Considering our age, we're at risk of having a down syndrome baby. Or a baby with some other medical issue. We discussed this all and came to the conclusion that no matter what, we're having the baby even if it has Downs. But that's our choice to make and I can understand why some people would choose differently. I wouldn't judge either way. It's a serious issue and I can't see how anyone could take it lightly. Aborting for any reason has got to be one of the biggest and heaviest decisions one can make and it's likely a decision that will linger with them forever. Still, I believe it's their choice to make. And I say this spending last night feeling our baby kick up one heck of a storm. A lively little bugger.

 

[the_leander]

What is with you and straw men? Euthanasia is not legal in the United States and doctors have the ability to regulate pain.

That's not what I asked you. Thankyou for your dishonesty.

I cannot believe you keep pointing to that as a rebuttal. Did you actually read it?

Did you? Because right at the bottom it says this:

Regrdless of you feeling about the paper itself, and people can be readily forgiving for finding Giubilini’s arguments challenging, disturbing and eminiently disagreeable, as an ethic paper published with the intent of provoking serious and far-reaching debate on a complex set of ethical questions, one cannot reasonably criticise either the authors, for posing these questions, or the Journal of Medical Ethics for choosing the publish the paper.

That is the sole point of the paper. It is not a statement of intent by medicine, but as I stated in the previous thread, it was designed to challenge. Anyone who has ever gone to college should be familiar with the concept of a professor taking a stance and challenging his or her students to justify their opposition.

The rebuttal is in pointing out that single fact against your repeated assertion that it is a statement of intent.

I know subtlety isn't exactly a strong suit, but goddamn...

Withdraw? You keep REINFORCING the idea every time you type!

You will withdraw it sir. I have stated, repeatedly now that I do not agree with the paper.

 

[redrumloa]

Considering our age, we're at risk of having a down syndrome baby. Or a baby with some other medical issue. We discussed this all and came to the conclusion that no matter what, we're having the baby even if it has Downs. But that's our choice to make and I can understand why some people would choose differently. I wouldn't judge either way. It's a serious issue and I can't see how anyone could take it lightly. Aborting for any reason has got to be one of the biggest and heaviest decisions one can make and it's likely a decision that will linger with them forever. Still, I believe it's their choice to make. And I say this spending last night feeling our baby kick up one heck of a storm. A lively little bugger.

Do you really think if the baby was born and you held it in your arms, the doctor told you he/she had down syndrome, you would say "go ahead and kill him/her"? I know you said no already, but what if you hadn't thought that through? I'm not talking abortion at this point, I am talking traditional live birth.

 

[redrumloa]

redrumloa said: ↑

What is with you and straw men? Euthanasia is not legal in the United States and doctors have the ability to regulate pain.​

That's not what I asked you. Thankyou for your dishonesty.

Errm, are you hitting the shrooms?

Would you rather a newborn die in agony over the course of several hours or days, knowing that there was nothing you could do to save it, or would you allow it some dignity and give it enough sedative that it died peacefully in it's sleep?

That is a straw man and a deflection to change the subject. To overdose a baby in order to kill it is euthanasia and it is not legal in the USA. The doctor would be allowed to provide enough sedative to relieve the pain. Why are you so dead set on deflection? The subject in question is whether perfectly viable babies should be slaughtered for the betterment of the parents or community.

You will withdraw it sir. I have stated, repeatedly now that I do not agree with the paper.

You have a strange way of saying you do not agree with the paper. If legislation came up in your country to make infanticide legal, would you support it? Would you argue it was the parent's choice? Hell, it is already legal in the Netherlands as the original articles states.

Personally I think this is a bad idea. I also strongly disagree that rebuttal rebuts anything.

Another link.

The fact that The Netherlands already permits the killing of disabled newborns is not widely known, even by many in the pro-life movement. The practice is permitted under the so-called Groningen Protocol, which outlines the circumstances under which a physician may deliver a lethal injection to a newborn who suffers from a disability, at the request of the child’s parents.

An article published in 2008 in the prestigious Hastings Center Report about the Protocol similarly provoked outrage after the authors argued that disabled babies might be “better off dead.”
The authors of that article also linked infanticide to legalized abortion, arguing that infanticide may in fact be the morally superior alternative to abortion.

“The supposedly morally superior alternative [of abortion]…does not strike us as superior at all,” they wrote. Instead, they said, parents of a child with a poor prenatal diagnosis should wait until the child is born, when they can make a more informed decision about the chance that their child has of living a “satisfactory” life.

“We join disability activists who condemn the routine recommendation of abortions performed for no other reason than to prevent the birth of an affected baby,” they said.

In the USA, 1 in 54 boys are now diagnosed with Autism. Should we be killed nearly 2% of all boys born?

 

[the_leander]

Errm, are you hitting the shrooms?

Nope, but you're still dodging the question.

Would you rather a newborn die in agony over the course of several hours or days, knowing that there was nothing you could do to save it, or would you allow it some dignity and give it enough sedative that it died peacefully in it's sleep?

That is a straw man and a deflection to change the subject.

Actually, it was very specific to the subject at hand. The paper you keep accusing me of supporting goes far beyond the concept of ending the suffering of those who would otherwise be incapable of survival regardless of resources thrown at it. I asked that question based on the reality of the subject at hand, it is not a strawman and you have a damned nerve to accuse anyone of deflection.

To overdose a baby in order to kill it is euthanasia and it is not legal in the USA.

Again, I did not ask what the legal status was in the US, I asked you what you would do in the situation. It was an attempt to try to bring home to you the reality of the situation.

The subject in question is whether perfectly viable babies should be slaughtered for the betterment of the parents or community.

The question in response is the same, are you willing to shoulder the burden for those with severe defects in cases where the parents to be have no hope of coping with such a situation.

Because until you do, you have no business demanding anything of anyone else.

You have a strange way of saying you do not agree with the paper.

Nope, I've been consistent throughout, you however went right off the deep end.

If legislation came up in your country to make infanticide legal, would you support it? Would you argue it was the parent's choice? Hell, it is already legal in the Netherlands as the original articles states.

In what circumstances is it legal? That would seem to be a very pertinent question.

I also strongly disagree that rebuttal rebuts anything.

Of course you do sweetheart.

In the USA, 1 in 54 boys are now diagnosed with Autism. Should we be killed nearly 2% of all boys born?

Autism diagnosis tends to occur around the age of 6. However in the more extreme cases, where parents can't cope, those children are then put into state care. So your question does not apply.

 

[cecilia]

Do you really think if the baby was born and you held it in your arms, the doctor told you he/she had down syndrome, you would say "go ahead and kill him/her"? I know you said no already, but what if you hadn't thought that through? I'm not talking abortion at this point, I am talking traditional live birth.

the problem with your question is that you imagine EVERYONE will have the same response as you. And that just isn't the case. And you are simply incapable of imagining anyone having a different point of view. Which is why you should NOT be telling anyone how they are supposed to feel and what THEY are supposed to do in their life.

other people's lives is simply none of your business. What kind of egotist thinks they can dictate to others

 

[redrumloa]

the problem with your question is that you imagine EVERYONE will have the same response as you. And that just isn't the case. And you are simply incapable of imagining anyone having a different point of view. Which is why you should NOT be telling anyone how they are supposed to feel and what THEY are supposed to do in their life.

other people's lives is simply none of your business. What kind of egotist thinks they can dictate to others

My point is once the baby is born, the parent should not have the right to make that decision. The baby is a human being and if the parents can't cope, there are charitable organizations and government organizations that can care for the child.

As much as I hate abortion, at least that is a gray area and I understand the pro-choice argument. I just cannot believe the conversation has moved from early term abortion being a necessary evil to having to argue against killing babies. When does it end and basic human rights kick in, in this new world?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I just cannot believe the conversation has moved from early term abortion being a necessary evil to having to argue against killing babies.

You should believe it, you moved it there.

 

[redrumloa]

You should believe it, you moved it there.

I did not write the ethics article, nor was I the one to defend it. You really surprised I'd be flabbergasted that people would actually defend such thinking? We can't even say slipper slope anymore, society already fell down the slope. What's next? Killing homeless people because they are a burden on society?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I did not write the ethics article, nor was I the one to defend it. You really surprised I'd be flabbergasted that people would actually defend such thinking?

It's ok to ask the questions. It's ok to pose tough moral choices. No-one actually defended the position but when people defended the asking of the question you branded them baby killers. You've been yelling at everyone who didn't immediately submit to your emotional blackmail ever since.

What's next? Killing homeless people because they are a burden on society?

What do you mean, next? That's already part of the system. Homeless equals worthless - best they die and reduce the surplus population - that is the capitalist way. Is this a ruse, Red, because you are starting to sound more socialist every day. Are we, as a society, bound to give assistance to those less fortunate than ourselves? Are you saying you are willing to accept such social responsibility?

 

[Glaucus]

I don't think anyone supports killing babies simply because they may be inconvenient. However, babies can be born with an array of defects that can cause all sorts of problems, many of which would lead to an early death anyway. Letting them die soon after birth is in fact seen as mercy by some as it eliminates a prolonged life of suffering. Downs babies for example typically end in miscarriage and those that are born tend to have badly formed hearts, leading to death anyway. So it's really a case by case basis, but the fact is sometimes you're faced with two really bad choices. Just be thankful you were never forced to make such a choice.