Newborns do not have a "moral right to life" claims medical ethics expert..

KittyeeTrix

Not sure if this deserved a thread of it's own or could have been added to the "Mere mention of abortion" thread.....Feel free to merge Mods if we think it better

I'll be honest and say even though I'm in favour of abortion that I was a little shocked by this doctors opinions....especially that a baby born disabled should be able to be killed after birth:eek:

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/killing-of-newborn-babies-is-acceptable-say-doctors-3036581.html

PARENTS should be allowed to have newborn babies killed as it is no different from abortion, medical ethics experts linked to Oxford University have argued.
Newborns are not "actual persons" and do not have a "moral right to life", they say. Parents should be able to have a baby killed if it turns out to be disabled, or for any other reason that would allow an abortion, they add in an article in the 'Journal of Medical Ethics'.
The authors had received death threats following its publication, said the journal's editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, who is the director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics.
He said that those who had made abusive and threatening responses were "fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society".
The article, entitled 'After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?', was written by Dr Alberto Giubilini and Dr Francesca Minerva.
They argued: "The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a foetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual."
They explained: "Both a foetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a 'person' in the sense of 'subject of a moral right to life'.
"We take 'person' to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her."
The authors concluded 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".
They also argued that parents should be able to have a baby killed if it turned out to be disabled when born.
They added, as an example, that many cases of Down Syndrome were not identified by pre-natal testing.
"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," they wrote.
Justifiable
They did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others, but that morally they were no different from abortion as already practised.
Defending the decision to publish the article, Prof Savulescu said that arguments in favour of infanticide were "largely not new" and his journal was not to "promote some one moral view.
It is to present "well-reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises".
He said the journal would consider publishing an article arguing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal

diddlybit

I think generally when radical ethical arguments are transposed into a much shorter article, it creates holes in the reasoning and often makes for sensationalist journalism. But perhaps that's what the writers were seeking to do.

The question at the crux of this, is if killing a human being is wrong, what exactly constitutes a human being. When does a fetus become an human and therefore be granted the same rights?

In regards to the killing of newly born infants, this still does occur in some cultures and occured in Ireland as well. Peter Singer, a proponent of radical philsophy, argues that an action should increase the well-being of many. If a child or individual is somehow incapacitated and reducing the happiness of others, they should be "culled". (Sorry, not the right word and apologies to Singer followers for my very vague recollection.)

In a way, the doctors are simply reiterating the old ethical arguments surrounding abortion, but have just phrased it in a way that will garner attention. It's still a dead horse and even they would have to admit that our contemporary society will probably not revert back to infantcide any time soon.

Dolbert

Sounds like an argument for eugenics, which is a frankly terrifying concept.

They did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others, but that morally they were no different from abortion as already practised.

I have to admit, ethically I have never been able to see the difference between a late-term abortion and the killing of a newborn. It all seems so abritrary.

Bubblefett

KittyeeTrix wrote: »

Not sure if this deserved a thread of it's own or could have been added to the "Mere mention of abortion" thread.....Feel free to merge Mods if we think it better

I'll be honest and say even though I'm in favour of abortion that I was a little shocked by this doctors opinions....especially that a baby born disabled should be able to be killed after birth:eek:

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/killing-of-newborn-babies-is-acceptable-say-doctors-3036581.html

That article actually turned my stomach.
I actually thought it must have been writen for shock-value/get name in papers purposes.
I can't believe that anyone who has ever seen a newborn baby could believe something like this.

OldNotWIse

Dolorous wrote: »

Sounds like an argument for eugenics, which is a frankly terrifying concept.



I have to admit, ethically I have never been able to see the difference between a late-term abortion and the killing of a newborn. It all seems so abritrary.

I've pondered the same, and with medical advances meaning that babies born at 25 weeks have survived...how can an abortion at 26 weeks be justified? The "viability" factor can no longer be used by pro choice-for-the-woman-not-the-baby folk

newport2

bubblefett wrote: »

That article actually turned my stomach.
I actually thought it must have been writen for shock-value/get name in papers purposes.
I can't believe that anyone who has ever seen a newborn baby could believe something like this.

The article reads like it is written by someone anti-abortion who is just twisting the case, saying that if abortion is ok, then killing a newborn baby is ok. As most people will conclude that killing a newborn baby is wrong, they are then implying indirectly that therefore abortion is wrong too. Kind of reverse psychology.

OldNotWIse

newport2 wrote: »

The article reads like it is written by someone anti-abortion who is just twisting the case, saying that if abortion is ok, then killing a newborn baby is ok. As most people will conclude that killing a newborn baby is wrong, they are then implying indirectly that therefore abortion is wrong too. Kind of reverse psychology.

Perhaps they are using this tactic, but it is still a bizzare concept that some people can accept late term abortions and yet be abhored by the idea of killing a newborn and (as I pointed out in another post) in some cases, the unborn may actually be older than the newborn, the only difference being that one has been afforded the right to life because it passed through the birth canal. If we take emotion out of it and try to be rational - it IS a fair point, and I think it was designed to make people stop and think about their values rather than peddle pro-life propaganda.

diddlybit

newport2 wrote: »

Kind of reverse psychology.

Sometimes it's the opposite, the general population finds this idea abbhorant, but obviously the doctors that wrote the paper may not, nor would other radical bio-ethicists

If abortion is okay, why not infantcide? Especially if the criteria is not fulfilled of what constitutes a human. The argument has further wider implications in regards to euthanasia or to what extent medical intervention should be used to keep someone alive.

neuro-praxis

This is an old argument. We used to talk about it in college a lot (philosophy). It is simply taking abortion to its logical limit. The authors of this article aren't pro-lifers in disguise - this a very real and established school of thought that started, as has already been said, with Singer.

It's one of the reasons I'm against abortion. My inability to say when a person is a person is problematic for me. My inability to make that call therefore puts me in a position where I cannot support the termination of any human life, regardless of it being 4 weeks old or 44.

diddlybit

neuro-praxis wrote: »

This is an old argument.

It's so old, I'm wondering how they even managed to get it published. (Not to mention it being a blatent rip-off of Singer's work.)

KittyeeTrix

Here is a link to the actual journal article published in The Journal of Medical Ethics only published this month...

Might be worth a read to get the full picture for those of us who haven't heard of Singer

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.long

muppeteer

diddlybit wrote: »

It's so old, I'm wondering how they even managed to get it published. (Not to mention it being a blatent rip-off of Singer's work.)

Well they did reference one of his papers:rolleyes:

I posted about this elsewhere but it fits here too.

To be honest the thought of infanticide did not sit well with me before I read the paper. I had an almost emotional/gut reaction, such that I thought that I would find some error or flaw in their reasoning, allowing me to maintain my existing views. (pro-choice up until the fetus develops brain function)
But after reading it, I have to provisionally agree with it's premises and logic to its conclusion. A conclusion I initially thought I would not have to face while remaining pro choice.

I suppose that initial gut reaction is common to many people in an abortion debate but an ethical position cannot be founded upon such a reaction.

Whether or not an entity is deserving of rights, as I see it, is entirely to do with self awareness, sapience and its ability for suffering/pleasure.

I'm still not entirely comfortable with after birth abortion, I would see adoption as generally producing the greatest amount of happiness for every person involved.

boynesider

muppeteer wrote: »

diddlybit wrote: »

It's so old, I'm wondering how they even managed to get it published. (Not to mention it being a blatent rip-off of Singer's work.)

Well they did reference one of his papers:rolleyes:

I posted about this elsewhere but it fits here too.

To be honest the thought of infanticide did not sit well with me before I read the paper. I had an almost emotional/gut reaction, such that I thought that I would find some error or flaw in their reasoning, allowing me to maintain my existing views. (pro-choice up until the fetus develops brain function)
But after reading it, I have to provisionally agree with it's premises and logic to its conclusion. A conclusion I initially thought I would not have to face while remaining pro choice.

I suppose that initial gut reaction is common to many people in an abortion debate but an ethical position cannot be founded upon such a reaction.

Whether or not an entity is deserving of rights, as I see it, is entirely to do with self awareness, sapience and its ability for suffering/pleasure.

I'm still not entirely comfortable with after birth abortion, I would see adoption as generally producing the greatest amount of happiness for every person involved.

You're nor "entirely comfortable with after birth abortion"? So you mean that a part of you is actually comfortable with it?

That's pretty sick to be honest. Are you serious or are you just looking for attention?

muppeteer

boynesider wrote: »

You're nor "entirely comfortable with after birth abortion"? So you mean that a part of you is actually comfortable with it?

That's pretty sick to be honest. Are you serious or are you just looking for attention?

Serious in that it is a serious ethical question. I'm not saying I would choose this myself, hell I'm not even sure I'd choose a late term abortion let alone this.
But am I comfortable with late term abortion for women should they choose so? Yes. After birth I'm not so sure, it's why I'm thinking it through as best I can.

Looking at it from a functional ethics stand point it is hard to argue against the logic if you accept the common premises that are used in support of existing late term abortion.

One of the only objections I can think of so far is that after a baby is born it is no longer an imposition on the mother(as she can give the baby away) and as such the papers assertion that having the baby survive is an imposition on her, due to the fear that it might show up on her door step in the future, is pretty weak.
I'm also a little shaky on some of the implications for the disabled, not in any potential eugenics type situation developing or a devaluing of their rights, but more of an erosion of their position in society. But this issue already exists somewhat with abortion due to disability and the world hasn't fallen down yet.

Don't worry about the sick remark, I have a similar kind of instinctual/emotional response to this issue too. But ethics can't be driven by such emotion alone.

OldNotWIse

But am I comfortable with late term abortion for women should they choose so? Yes. After birth I'm not so sure, it's why I'm thinking it through as best I can.

But often in "late term abortions" they simply induce labour and the baby is born alive and then dies... So technically, the child has been "born" and so your "after birth" uncertainty should come into play once this happens?

muppeteer

OldNotWIse wrote: »

But am I comfortable with late term abortion for women should they choose so? Yes. After birth I'm not so sure, it's why I'm thinking it through as best I can.

But often in "late term abortions" they simply induce labour and the baby is born alive and then dies... So technically, the child has been "born" and so your "after birth" uncertainty should come into play once this happens?

Do you happen to have a source for that? I read something similar recently but I could not find an original source, just re-blogging.

From the description of Intact Dilaton and Extraction it seems close to what you describe but it seems to be very much the exception rather than the rule that viable fetuses are killed.
The methods used seem to be a work around to be honest, to avoid running into legal trouble by killing the fetus when it is mostly still inside the uterus. I would see this as not equivalent to after birth abortion, but very close.
It is close because it can be performed on a viable fetus. The difference I think comes in the fact that when the fetus is still inside the uterus it is an imposition that can be removed from her body. If killing the fetus results in the least imposition on the woman then I would see that as justifiable.

After birth, provided somebody is willing to care for the baby and it will not unduly cause suffering to itself or others, then killing it would not be justified.

Where the authors fall down I think is that they conflate the term after birth abortion with what has actually become after birth euthanasia.
The euthanasia debate I think can be kept separate from the abortion debate. They may share many of the same justifications and value judgments of the fetus but once a fetus becomes independent of the womans body its value becomes separate from the harm and distress it can cause to the woman.

OldNotWIse

muppeteer wrote: »

Do you happen to have a source for that? I read something similar recently but I could not find an original source, just re-blogging.

From the description of Intact Dilaton and Extraction it seems close to what you describe but it seems to be very much the exception rather than the rule that viable fetuses are killed.
The methods used seem to be a work around to be honest, to avoid running into legal trouble by killing the fetus when it is mostly still inside the uterus. I would see this as not equivalent to after birth abortion, but very close.
It is close because it can be performed on a viable fetus. The difference I think comes in the fact that when the fetus is still inside the uterus it is an imposition that can be removed from her body. If killing the fetus results in the least imposition on the woman then I would see that as justifiable.

After birth, provided somebody is willing to care for the baby and it will not unduly cause suffering to itself or others, then killing it would not be justified.

Where the authors fall down I think is that they conflate the term after birth abortion with what has actually become after birth euthanasia.
The euthanasia debate I think can be kept separate from the abortion debate. They may share many of the same justifications and value judgments of the fetus but once a fetus becomes independent of the womans body its value becomes separate from the harm and distress it can cause to the woman.

So it is killed pre-birth as a loophole, essentially. So that it will be born dead. I am so ill at ease with the whole thing to be honest.

Standman

The way I always think of it is; if person A's body is being used to keep person B alive, then person A should have the right to opt out of that as it is their right to govern their own body even if it does result in the death of another.

I think this right goes away after the person is not directly dependent on your body to stay alive, therefore killing a new born baby is quite different to aborting a foetus.

Scruffles

KittyeeTrix wrote: »

Not sure if this deserved a thread of it's own or could have been added to the "Mere mention of abortion" thread.....Feel free to merge Mods if we think it better

I'll be honest and say even though I'm in favour of abortion that I was a little shocked by this doctors opinions....especially that a baby born disabled should be able to be killed after birth:eek:

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/killing-of-newborn-babies-is-acceptable-say-doctors-3036581.html

have personaly got mixed views on the subject,and do admit to having a bias-am severely autistic and globaly learning disabled,and a relative to many disabled uncles and cousins [a uncle with PMLD,a teenage cousin with global learning disability/her brother has hf classic autism,and cousins jack & nicola were both born with rare profound terminal disabilities that were spotted on scan and they werent expected to be born but they lived till they were toddlers].

am all for people to have choice over their own body,in this respect am pro choice.

however,people seem to make a connection that disabilities [that show up on scans] equal a negative world where the individual will only suffer.

to use down syndrome as an example,had been schooled with-and have lived with downs individuals for many years-have lived with adults who are profoundly affected by it,but they get the right understanding and support which helps them to have a high quality of life.
one lad had downs quite mildly,but he had quite a few of the physical issues-heart problems and diabetes [insulin dependant type],he did his own injections and had a fuller life than most people do-going fishing, college, PHAB club etc,have been to special college with several downs adults who had regular jobs in the community,they had their own place to.

from what have both seen and experienced-people with downs have some incredible qualities about them-they have deep care and love for others,and as adults especialy they are often more likely to think of others before themselves.
who is to say they wont have the ability to become very independant adults,they may live on their own with no support [am aware of several downs adults who have their own regular flat,go to the PHAB club,are unsupported and working].

instead of seeing suffering and disability on the scan,see a child with extra issues and additional needs-but having a disabled child does take a certain type of parent to help them cope.
mum had become depressed and became a heavy alcoholic due to not coping,back in those days the doctors guilt tripped & blamed her and there was no support,parents who have found out that their baby is going to be born disabled shoud be put in contact with charities who deal with the disability and also given mental health support for themselves-free if possible through government funded charity councilors like we have over here with MIND and so forth.
perhaps given training on dealing with the disabled childs issues and behaviors so they dont feel alone and know what to do.

apologies for long post.

boynesider

Scruffles wrote: »

KittyeeTrix wrote: »

Not sure if this deserved a thread of it's own or could have been added to the "Mere mention of abortion" thread.....Feel free to merge Mods if we think it better

I'll be honest and say even though I'm in favour of abortion that I was a little shocked by this doctors opinions....especially that a baby born disabled should be able to be killed after birth:eek:

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/killing-of-newborn-babies-is-acceptable-say-doctors-3036581.html

have personaly got mixed views on the subject,and do admit to having a bias-am severely autistic and globaly learning disabled,and a relative to many disabled uncles and cousins [a uncle with PMLD,a teenage cousin with global learning disability/her brother has hf classic autism,and cousins jack & nicola were both born with rare profound terminal disabilities that were spotted on scan and they werent expected to be born but they lived till they were toddlers].

am all for people to have choice over their own body,in this respect am pro choice.

however,people seem to make a connection that disabilities [that show up on scans] equal a negative world where the individual will only suffer.

to use down syndrome as an example,had been schooled with-and have lived with downs individuals for many years-have lived with adults who are profoundly affected by it,but they get the right understanding and support which helps them to have a high quality of life.
one lad had downs quite mildly,but he had quite a few of the physical issues-heart problems and diabetes [insulin dependant type],he did his own injections and had a fuller life than most people do-going fishing, college, PHAB club etc,have been to special college with several downs adults who had regular jobs in the community,they had their own place to.

from what have both seen and experienced-people with downs have some incredible qualities about them-they have deep care and love for others,and as adults especialy they are often more likely to think of others before themselves.
who is to say they wont have the ability to become very independant adults,they may live on their own with no support [am aware of several downs adults who have their own regular flat,go to the PHAB club,are unsupported and working].

instead of seeing suffering and disability on the scan,see a child with extra issues and additional needs-but having a disabled child does take a certain type of parent to help them cope.
mum had become depressed and became a heavy alcoholic due to not coping,back in those days the doctors guilt tripped & blamed her and there was no support,parents who have found out that their baby is going to be born disabled shoud be put in contact with charities who deal with the disability and also given mental health support for themselves-free if possible through government funded charity councilors like we have over here with MIND and so forth.
perhaps given training on dealing with the disabled childs issues and behaviors so they dont feel alone and know what to do.

apologies for long post.

Fantastic post and I agree with everything. There is an extraordinary misconception amongst many supposedly rational and enlightened people that their lives are somehow more valid and worthy than that of someone with a disability or birth defect. They should stop flattering themselves.

There is no justification for aborting a foetus solely because of a potential disability. We live (or at least aspire to live) in an advanced, welfare society and there is no reason for a disabled individual to be a burden on anyone.

I am personally undecided on the abortion debate, but I unequivocally oppose abortion on the grounds of disability, and I have to say I'm surprised and a little disappointed by the amount of people who would find it acceptable.

doctor evil

But what about after the parents are gone? With babies born with non-life shortening disabiliteis the parents are often horrified of the though of what will happen once they themselves are dead.

MrPudding

My understanding was that this was an intellectual exercise, and whilst they argued that, ethically, there was little difference between a late term abortion and killing the child post birth, they were not actually advocating this as something that should be available... Open to correction though.

MrP

boynesider

doctor evil wrote: »

But what about after the parents are gone? With babies born with non-life shortening disabiliteis the parents are often horrified of the though of what will happen once they themselves are dead.

That is clearly an important issue, but as I said it still shouldn't be a burden if the appropriate structures are put in place by the state and if people continue to follow the compassionate, communal ethic which I believe is very strong in this country. Life is nearly always worth living, and I believe it is our obligation as a society to facilitate it as much as possible.

Victor

doctor evil wrote: »

But what about after the parents are gone? With babies born with non-life shortening disabiliteis the parents are often horrified of the though of what will happen once they themselves are dead.

Not every person with a disability is incapable of looking after themselves. Sure they may need some support, but lets face it, we all need some support.

OldNotWIse

Standman wrote: »

The way I always think of it is; if person A's body is being used to keep person B alive, then person A should have the right to opt out of that as it is their right to govern their own body even if it does result in the death of another.

I think this right goes away after the person is not directly dependent on your body to stay alive, therefore killing a new born baby is quite different to aborting a foetus.

Even if person A has knowingly and intentionally brought about the circumstances that involve person B being created and put inside person A in the first place?

OldNotWIse

doctor evil wrote: »

But what about after the parents are gone? With babies born with non-life shortening disabiliteis the parents are often horrified of the though of what will happen once they themselves are dead.

A valid point, and one that is used quite a bit. The issue I always had with it, however is that the logic seems to be flawed somewhat. If people say, "well I am worried about what will happen to him when I am gone" or (as I have heard in response to the argument of "why not give your child up for adoption if you dont want to keep it?") , "What if he goes to a family who abuse him?". Reasonable concerns...but really, killing your baby just in case??? How is ending their life before they are even born any better? I am going to kill my unborn baby because I am afraid that if I give him up for adoption his parents might abuse him? I am going to kill my unborn baby in case there is nobody to look after him when I die? Talk about ensuring the worst case scenario. Believe it or not, I have even heard people trying to say that perhaps being aborted is the lesser evil, and as a survivor of abuse, I find that a hard pill to swallow :eek: (in much the same way that someone with a physical or intellectual disability would be horrified to read posts claiming that such disabilities are grounds for abortion)

Ickle Magoo

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Even if person A has knowingly and intentionally brought about the circumstances that involve person B being created and put inside person A in the first place?

Of course - all the abortion arguments are, is trying to find the arbitrary line where right to life superceeds the equally important legal and civil bodily rights enjoyed automatically by most people in civil society...

OldNotWIse wrote: »

but really, killing your baby just in case???

As an aside, the over-dramatised appeals to emotion actually detract from any argument. Do you really think people who don't want to be pregnant, view that concious-less bundle of cells as *clutches chest* "their baby" - I never want to be pregnant again - I use an IUD which works by ensuring implantation doesn't take place...I don't view it as a monthly baby murdering session any more than I'd view getting a wart removed as some great biological catastrophe. I think you have to appreciate that not everyone feels the same strength of emotional investment in pregnancy, at every stage, as others - surely the main reason why an abortion argument exists at all!

I think the article just takes abortion to it's logical conclusion - the abortion debate is full of inconsistencies and contradictions, fuelled by various emotional and religious views - roughly legislated along the ever changing cusp of knowledge and abilities in medical science. It's really just another branch of the; if you can force people to be pregnant because all life is sacred, can you force people to give blood, platelets and organs against their will, in order to save sacred life or should people be allowed to decide when they or others die type ethical quandaries.

OldNotWIse

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Of course - all the abortion arguments are, is trying to find the arbitrary line where right to life superceeds the equally important legal and civil bodily rights enjoyed automatically by most people in civil society...



As an aside, the over-dramatised appeals to emotion actually detract from any argument. Do you really think people who don't want to be pregnant, view that concious-less bundle of cells as *clutches chest* "their baby" - I never want to be pregnant again - I use an IUD which works by ensuring implantation doesn't take place...I don't view it as a monthly baby murdering session any more than I'd view getting a wart removed as some great biological catastrophe. I think you have to appreciate that not everyone feels the same strength of emotional investment in pregnancy, at every stage, as others - surely the main reason why an abortion argument exists at all!

I think the article just takes abortion to it's logical conclusion - the abortion debate is full of inconsistencies and contradictions, fuelled by various emotional and religious views - roughly legislated along the ever changing cusp of knowledge and abilities in medical science. It's really just another branch of the; if you can force people to be pregnant because all life is sacred, can you force people to give blood, platelets and organs against their will, in order to save sacred life or should people be allowed to decide when they or others die type ethical quandaries.

ok fair enough, killing your "cluster of cells just in case"? Whatever you chose to call it (and yes I call it a baby because I view it as one, and no I dont have a problem with you calling it a cluster of cells if you view it as such) - I can assure you I am not religious and I certainly do not use terminology in an attempt to "dramatise" the situation. I use terminology based on how I view the situation. Simple. I view it as an unborn baby. By the way, where did you get the idea that an IUD is a baby murdering device? What baby exactly???? Taking responsible steps to ensure you do not create a baby in the first place is admirable but I dont see it's relevance to this conversation?

Ickle Magoo

OldNotWIse wrote: »

ok fair enough, killing your "cluster of cells just in case"? Whatever you chose to call it (and yes I call it a baby because I view it as one, and no I dont have a problem with you calling it a cluster of cells if you view it as such) - I can assure you I am not religious and I certainly do not use terminology in an attempt to "dramatise" the situation. I use terminology based on how I view the situation. Simple. I view it as an unborn baby. By the way, where did you get the idea that an IUD is a baby murdering device? What baby exactly???? Taking responsible steps to ensure you do not create a baby in the first place is admirable but I dont see it's reclevance to this conversation?

Which is just a prime example of the arbitrary time-line and personal views that drive the arguments on this topic. Implantation is post-conception, many view conception as the point "sacred" life is created and thus many contraceptives, including my IUD would be responsible for the destruction of an "unborn baby" and they'd be crowing about such couples who kill/murder "their babies".

Given what you've written above, you either don't understand what implantation is or you don't view conception as the point a baby is created - move that same arbitrary line along in either direction and you get the whole spectrum of views on pregnancy/abortion ethics from those who want the pill, IUD's and anything that makes the uterus hostile to zygote implantation made illegal all the way up to those who approve of late-term abortion...why is the point you've chosen to stand at any more valid than anyone else's?

OldNotWIse

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Which is just a prime example of the arbitrary time-line and personal views that drive the arguments on this topic. Implantation is post-conception, many view conception as the point "sacred" life is created and thus many contraceptives, including my IUD would be responsible for the destruction of an "unborn baby" and they'd be crowing about such couples who kill/murder "their babies".

Given what you've written above, you either don't understand what implantation is or you don't view conception as the point a baby is created - move that same arbitrary line along in either direction and you get the whole spectrum of views on pregnancy/abortion ethics from those who want the pill, IUD's and anything that makes the uterus hostile to zygote implantation made illegal all the way up to those who approve of late-term abortion...why is the point you've chosen to stand at any more valid than anyone else's?

With respect, you are the one who introduced the concept of your IUD destroying a baby - not me. Why are you challenging me on an arguemnt you introduced yourself?

Where did I state that my point was any more valid than someone else's? (Seems to me that those who are pro-choice are "entitled to their views" while those who are "pro-life" are accused of crowing to others. Why the distinction?)

I have never stated where along the spectrum I place my values, mostly because I do not know! I do not agree with inducing labour at 6 months so that the child will die. I do agree that women have the right to use contraception (including the MAP) and yes you can all have a go at me now and say "well if you agree with one, why not the other?" and I dont have an answer to this. I think we all know there is a huge difference between the two, but to find the point of distinction is diffcult, I admit. Perhaps upon development of the hypothalmus? Perhaps when the baby is viable? By your own admission, it is not a black and white area. :rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo

OldNotWIse wrote: »

With respect, you are the one who introduced the concept of your IUD destroying a baby - not me. Why are you challenging me on an arguemnt you introduced yourself?

To show that it's all part of the same arbitrary time-line and despite all and any of the appeals to emotion and emotive language these discussions predictably bring out; the issue is not universally black and white. Most people will, at some stage, cross an arbitrary line or make an arbitrary choice that would render them every bit as "guilty" as those they criticize just slightly further up the same time-line. That is the moral or ethical paradox/hypocrisy hi-jacked to make a good news story in the OP.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Where did I state that my point was any more valid than someone else's?

Where did I say you said otherwise? Look at it as a general question - it is an ethical dilemma precisely because there is no definitive point at which one persons view is more valid, or right or logical than any others - beyond our own personal beliefs, ethics, religion and indeed, the legislative rulings we are accustomed to.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

(Seems to me that those who are pro-choice are "entitled to their views" while those who are "pro-life" are accused of crowing to others. Why the distinction?)

That's interesting.

You have alluded multiple times now to some knowledge of what my personal views on this issue are, despite the fact that beyond questioning why where one chooses to sit on an arbitrary time-line should automatically entitle one to moral supremacy, I haven't given them...

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I have never stated where along the spectrum I place my values, mostly because I do not know! I do not agree with inducing labour at 6 months so that the child will die. I do agree that women have the right to use contraception (including the MAP) and yes you can all have a go at me now and say "well if you agree with one, why not the other?" and I dont have an answer to this. I think we all know there is a huge difference between the two, but to find the point of distinction is diffcult, I admit. Perhaps upon development of the hypothalmus? Perhaps when the baby is viable? By your own admission, it is not a black and white area. :rolleyes:

Right - and that's the crux of the issue being discussed. It's an area so grey, legislative determinations and legal definitions of what constitutes "life", "pregnancy", "person", etc, change constantly and vary from country to country.

I'm not sure why I deserve having eyes rolled at me for daring to point out ethical dilemmas are by their very nature far more complex than the inevitable duckspeak ever allows for...

OldNotWIse

Where did I say you said otherwise? Look at it as a general question - it is an ethical dilemma precisely because there is no definitive point at which one persons view is more valid, or right or logical than any others - beyond our own personal beliefs, ethics, religion and indeed, the legislative rulings we are accustomed to.

Seriously? Word gymnastics? Is that what the discussion has come to?





You have alluded multiple times now to some knowledge of what my personal views on this issue are, despite the fact that beyond questioning why where one chooses to sit on an arbitrary time-line should automatically entitle one to moral supremacy, I haven't given them...
Er....more word gymnastics?



Right - and that's the crux of the issue being discussed. It's an area so grey, legislative determinations and legal definitions of what constitutes "life", "pregnancy", "person", etc, change constantly and vary from country to country.

I'm not sure why I deserve having eyes rolled at me for daring to point out ethical dilemmas are by their very nature far more complex than the inevitable duckspeak ever allows for...[/QUOTE]

Eyes rolling? I really didn't see that! (Sorry I genuinely didn't ) Perhaps you could point out where the appropriate facial expression for "Sigh...I agree with you on this, it's not black and white and it's difficult and tedious to try to figure out one's stance" is? Not being cheeky but tbh thats the feeling I was trying to get across

Ickle Magoo

You think pointing out that the discussion requires a modicum of thought beyond knee-jerk claims of baby killer and/or reiterating the same rhetorical question that the OP poses in terms of ethical consideration is word gymnastics?

Fine, let's all throw around emotive terminology without bothering to define or even acknowledge that, certainly in the abortion debate, there are no incontrovertible definitions for "murder", "baby", "killer", "life", etc, etc and have an utterly meaningless and hyperbolic free-for-all.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Eyes rolling? I really didn't see that! (Sorry I genuinely didn't ) Perhaps you could point out where the appropriate facial expression for "Sigh...I agree with you on this, it's not black and white and it's difficult and tedious to try to figure out one's stance" is? Not being cheeky but tbh thats the feeling I was trying to get across

I don't think there is a smiley which would cover it - of course, you could have just conceded - perhaps even without also throwing in the rather ironical accusations of gymnastics.

neuro-praxis

Ickle Magoo, it could well be argued that moderating the terminology used is a useful device for clouding the issue.

Ickle Magoo

I suppose it depends on what you consider being clouded or whom you consider doing the clouding.

I wouldn't consider pointing out hysterical hyperbole and emotive embellishment - regarding terminology that most countries require legislation to define and will still have individual disagreement - makes a poor argument when swathes of your audience do not agree with your definition as clouding the issue. Just the opposite in fact. The specific etymology favoured by certain quarters when it comes to promoting anti-choice seems to favour hyperbole and hysterical labels being attributed; which certainly stops any rational discourse in it's tracks - and that doesn't resolve the resulting issue in terms of setting a precedent for general discussion:

Fine, let's all throw around emotive terminology without bothering to define or even acknowledge that, certainly in the abortion debate, there are no incontrovertible definitions for "murder", "baby", "killer", "life", etc, etc and have an utterly meaningless and hyperbolic free-for-all.

tatabubbly

These type of articles are such, just articles.

Many times ethic issues are discussed, they are quite emotive. Nobody wants to talk about some of the issues but thats what they are issues.

I do not agree with that article at all but it's just one article. Neo-natal and premmie medicine is quite an emotive subject due to a new life being brought into the world. The world is all different shades of grey. Nobody wants to be labelled and taking into account this subject people have different words put on it.

To me, as a scientist, it's just one persons opinion which has been resourced and backed up by different research. The opinion the person is trying to get across, I think, is the quality of life of the person, nothing more or less. From the moment the sperm meets the egg and gets implanted, who is to say that isn't a life as well as a baby coming down the birthing canal? As I said, it's all shades of grey and ethical studies are suppose to help with the difficult decisions practioners make every day.

OldNotWIse

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You think pointing out that the discussion requires a modicum of thought beyond knee-jerk claims of baby killer and/or reiterating the same rhetorical question that the OP poses in terms of ethical consideration is word gymnastics?

Fine, let's all throw around emotive terminology without bothering to define or even acknowledge that, certainly in the abortion debate, there are no incontrovertible definitions for "murder", "baby", "killer", "life", etc, etc and have an utterly meaningless and hyperbolic free-for-all.



I don't think there is a smiley which would cover it - of course, you could have just conceded - perhaps even without also throwing in the rather ironical accusations of gymnastics.

No, I think statements like "You have alluded multiple times now to some knowledge of what my personal views on this issue are, despite the fact that beyond questioning why where one chooses to sit on an arbitrary time-line should automatically entitle one to moral supremacy, I haven't given them... " can be classed as word gymnastics.

Re the terminology, I have already stated that I use them based on my understanding of the situation, and have also acknowledged other poster's rights to use whatever terminology they wish to use. Do you think "bunch" is a proper scientific term when talking about cellular development? I dont care if you do, I am just making the point that the discussion can still continue if we refer to the same entity as what we consider it to be - we are still talking about the same thing.

The word gymnastics reference had little to do with the smiley btw.

gbee

I've maintained views along these lines for a while now already.

In nature, many cubs would be culled for defects, I ask why are we so different, especially as parents then usually go on to seek and demands state support including multi million euro operations and so on and so forth.

But it has to be a personal view.

Maguined

Standman wrote: »

The way I always think of it is; if person A's body is being used to keep person B alive, then person A should have the right to opt out of that as it is their right to govern their own body even if it does result in the death of another.

I think this right goes away after the person is not directly dependent on your body to stay alive, therefore killing a new born baby is quite different to aborting a foetus.

Does this mean you believe there should be no time limits on abortions? If someone wanted an abortion one week prior to their due date you would have no moral problem with this?

neuro-praxis

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The specific etymology favoured by certain quarters when it comes to promoting anti-choice seems to favour hyperbole and hysterical labels being attributed; which certainly stops any rational discourse in it's tracks - and that doesn't resolve the resulting issue in terms of setting a precedent for general discussion:

Hmm. Arguably using terms like "hyperbole" and "hysterical" is a smart tactic of disempowering any voice who feels that abortion is morally wrong. Abortion is simply put the termination of a pregnancy by the removal of or the explusion of the foetus or embryo from the womb. To say that it is killing a baby might be unpleasant, but unfortunately it is more accurate than "removing a bunch of cells". Abortion is not a matter of a swab. If it were, it wouldn't be such a painful decision for so many women.

I'm not even getting into the rights and wrongs of it in this instance: I'm simply highlighting that while you may consider it hysterical and hyperbolic to use such terms, others might consider your own terminology purposefully vague and evasive as to the reality of abortion.

seenitall

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Hmm. Arguably using terms like "hyperbole" and "hysterical" is a smart tactic of disempowering any voice who feels that abortion is morally wrong. Abortion is simply put the termination of a pregnancy by the removal of or the explusion of the foetus or embryo from the womb. To say that it is killing a baby might be unpleasant, but unfortunately it is more accurate than "removing a bunch of cells". Abortion is not a matter of a swab. tf it were, it wouldn't be such a painful decision for so many women.

I'm not even getting into the rights and wrongs of it in this instance: I'm simply highlighting that while you may consider it hysterical and hyperbolic to use such terms, others might consider your own terminology purposefully vague and evasive as to the reality of abortion.

Nothing to do with unpleasantness, "unfortunately". Whatever you consider abortion to be, it is more accurate in your view.

Many people, on the other hand, can see nothing even remotely vague or evasive in calling an embryo or a foetus, lo and behold - an embryo or a foetus, as opposed to "a baby". On the contrary, actually! One can hardly get any more accurate or less vague than that, I would think.

Ickle Magoo

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Hmm. Arguably using terms like "hyperbole" and "hysterical" is a smart tactic of disempowering any voice who feels that abortion is morally wrong.

I would argue anyone who has to resort to hyperbole and hysterics in order to power their voice is on shaky ground to start with.

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Abortion is simply put the termination of a pregnancy by the removal of or the explusion of the foetus or embryo from the womb.

Except it very obviously isn't that simple - which was precisely my point. Is a pregnancy from conception or implantation? Is it only the expulsion of a foetus or embryo, has no abortion taken place if it's the expulsion of a zygote, blastula, morula? And of course, at what stage does a foetus or embryo become a baby - one of the most pivotal questions in reproductive ethical discussion. There are no "simple" answers to those questions.

neuro-praxis wrote: »

To say that it is killing a baby might be unpleasant, but unfortunately it is more accurate than "removing a bunch of cells". Abortion is not a matter of a swab. If it were, it wouldn't be such a painful decision for so many women.

I'm well aware what abortion is not a matter of, thank you. If you read the post, you'd see my point about cells was in reference to another poster declaring their astonishment that any parents would "kill their baby" - my point was many couples who do not wish to be pregnant don't view pregnancy as the ethereal and sacred experience they do nor the foetus as anything other than a bunch of cells they don't want to be host to...I clearly wasn't suggesting "bunch of cells" should be used instead of a more accurate term, like zygote, foetus, or embryo in general discussion.

neuro-praxis wrote: »

I'm not even getting into the rights and wrongs of it in this instance: I'm simply highlighting that while you may consider it hysterical and hyperbolic to use such terms, others might consider your own terminology purposefully vague and evasive as to the reality of abortion.

Absolutely not - I think it's a common and utterly low tactic employed in order to propagate the guilt and taboo around the topic of abortion so as to discourage others from engaging in open and rational discussion. Ironically, such terminology is often used to describe abortion at a stage or for a reason that particular party disapproves of while they are completely in favour of other methods of pregnancy prevention or abortifacients which also results in the destruction of a potential human being. I think highlighting such inconsistencies and showing just how fine a line it is, is important - I'm aware some would rather it was glossed over in favour of pushing this idea of a black and white issue but really, that tells its own story.

neuro-praxis

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Is a pregnancy from conception or implantation? Is it only the expulsion of a foetus or embryo, has no abortion taken place if it's the expulsion of a zygote, blastula, morula? And of course, at what stage does a foetus or embryo become a baby - one of the most pivotal questions in reproductive ethical discussion. There are no "simple" answers to those questions.

And therein lies my problem with abortion.

Ickle Magoo

neuro-praxis wrote: »

And therein lies my problem with abortion.

Of course; and it's the same issue many others have with contraception, IVF, stem-cell research and all other aspects encompassed in reproductive ethics. It's the disparity of opinion within each topic and the characteristic degree of inconsistency between topics that cause many of the grey areas that the original article is alluding to, I think.

iguana

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Hmm. Arguably using terms like "hyperbole" and "hysterical" is a smart tactic of disempowering any voice who feels that abortion is morally wrong. Abortion is simply put the termination of a pregnancy by the removal of or the explusion of the foetus or embryo from the womb. To say that it is killing a baby might be unpleasant, but unfortunately it is more accurate than "removing a bunch of cells". Abortion is not a matter of a swab. If it were, it wouldn't be such a painful decision for so many women.

I'm not even getting into the rights and wrongs of it in this instance: I'm simply highlighting that while you may consider it hysterical and hyperbolic to use such terms, others might consider your own terminology purposefully vague and evasive as to the reality of abortion.

No, the terminology is what it is, the actual biological terms for the type of being that is being talked about. I'm 5 weeks pregnant with a very much wanted pregnancy and I am in fact carrying an embryo. Unless I'm talking to my husband I call it the embryo and even between us we talk about the embryo as much as our 'baby' depending on the type of discussion we are having. Eg. 'I can't wait to meet our baby.' or 'The embryo would have implanted a couple of weeks ago.' So when we are having a factual conversations we use factual terms and when we have emotional, fanciful or future planning conversations we talk about our baby.

The thing is though that someone who is so unhappily pregnant that they want to abort will never be having emotional, fanciful or future planning conversations about an as yet unformed 'baby' so it's realistic that they will talk about the embryo or foetus because that is both the reality and their reality.

Victor

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Except it very obviously isn't that simple - which was precisely my point. Is a pregnancy from conception or implantation? Is it only the expulsion of a foetus or embryo, has no abortion taken place if it's the expulsion of a zygote, blastula, morula? And of course, at what stage does a foetus or embryo become a baby - one of the most pivotal questions in reproductive ethical discussion. There are no "simple" answers to those questions.

In seeking definitions, it might be useful to look up some.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conception

conception /con·cep·tion/ (kon-sep´shun)
1. an imprecise term denoting the formation of a viable zygote.

Conception can variously be defined from the point of fertilization to the point of implantation, so in such hair splitting, avoid the use of the word conception.

Those that would strictly oppose abortion would set the start of life at fertilization, others would set it some time later.

Ickle Magoo

Yeah, cos taking the one definition out of the millions you get from google that suits your own agenda and then accusing anyone else of hairsplitting isn't ironic at all. :rolleyes:

Given the sentence you cherry-picked "conception" from was:

Is a pregnancy from conception or implantation? Is it only the expulsion of a foetus or embryo, has no abortion taken place if it's the expulsion of a zygote, blastula, morula?

I'm not even sure what point you are making - as the definition you give and the sentence I made are not at odds, the only thing that contradicts these definitions are peoples views ie your own added definition below - which is precisely the point I was making.

I'd also add there is a world of difference between terminology that the scientific community has yet to agree absolute precise boundaries in the use of and emotive and hyperbolic terminology that other people are likely to find offensive in general discussion.

Standman

Maguined wrote: »

Does this mean you believe there should be no time limits on abortions? If someone wanted an abortion one week prior to their due date you would have no moral problem with this?

I have a huge moral problem with that, and abortion in general. Personally I think that if a foetus looks like a person then it is a person in my mind, and you should do whatever it takes bring it safely into the world. The only way it can be morally justified in my opinion is if the life/health of the mother is put in serious danger. It may seem a silly way to look at it but that's my way of simplifying a very complex matter. I'm pro-choice not pro-abortion.