Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As time goes on, the definitions of what is considered acceptable will continue on this same route.
By the time Obama starts his third term in 2017, this practice will most likely be commonplace in the U.S.
It's the "overton window" or drifting effect. A good reason abortion should be mostly illegal and not allowed as a luxury procedure is that we don't begin drifting down that slippery slope. Another reason is the utmost responsibility should be taken when having sexual relations in regard to not getting pregnant if not desired. If abortion is freely available, there's always an ultimate out and less incentive to be responsible in the first place before things escalate.
'Abortion' after birth sounds like a terrible euphemism for infanticide. Whose idea was that in the first place?! I fail to see any reason that could justify such a killing.
And basically we would be faced with the same dilemma as with regular abortion, i.e. where to draw the line in terms of timing.
This is what those in the academia world are bantering about. The slippery slope has been crossed. So you have a baby and don't want it just cut it's throat it appears. Of course they will do it the "humane" way I'm sure.
This was published in the journal of medical ethics. What kind of monsters are running this ship???
"Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, 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. "
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#aff - broken link)
Didn't you notice the banter was sponsored by the Catholic Church? They're deciding for you by making a joke of the life and death choices women have to make almost entirely alone most of the time. Isn't that cute? Aren't they adorable?
I have a DNR instruction in my will and adamantly object to ever allow myself to be put in a Catholic hospital. I'd rather jump off a cliff than be Terry Shivo. Do not mistake my faith for what these people are doing.
'Abortion' after birth sounds like a terrible euphemism for infanticide. Whose idea was that in the first place?! I fail to see any reason that could justify such a killing.
And basically we would be faced with the same dilemma as with regular abortion, i.e. where to draw the line in terms of timing.
The Catholic Church has decided to make trolls of themselves. Haven't you noticed the signature slime tactics of radical 'tough love' maniacs?
It's the "overton window" or drifting effect. A good reason abortion should be mostly illegal and not allowed as a luxury procedure is that we don't begin drifting down that slippery slope. Another reason is the utmost responsibility should be taken when having sexual relations in regard to not getting pregnant if not desired. If abortion is freely available, there's always an ultimate out and less incentive to be responsible in the first place before things escalate.
A gun is a slippery slope for nuclear annihilation, therefore, we ought to abolish guns. Weapons of all kinds, as a matter of fact. Even boards with nails in it. World peace can be solved with a universal mandate of pacifism.
And next we will have pre-death killings. Old people not of use to society anymore. My FIL predicted this. He said---'first the babies, then the old people."
This experiment was done ages ago in Rome, wasn't it?
Far be it for me to ridicule this serious, studious thread but:
Most liberals couldn't debate their way on the abortion topic out of a wet paper bag.....
Because bottom line is this.... If the baby has ANY chance of surviving on it's own...IT IS ALIVE.
Now, they will tell you murder is wrong in any other scope of their preference.
They will tell you we should spend "X" amount of money to regulate our food supply....or the safety of our vehicles. But to do that you have to place an explicit value on a human life. If you don't you are NO LONGER ARGUING PRINCIPLE.
So, either treat EVERY life as sacred OR you are playing God with people's lives.
If a baby is born extremely premature around 24-28 weeks, the baby has a 50% chance of survival. The longer the baby stays in the womb, the survival chance increases because the body continues to develop. Premature baby do not have air in their lungs, but it doesn't mean they can't get help either. I'm pretty confident that a baby is a baby regardless their shape, size or form.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but:
