After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? (ethical, legal, stats)
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.
The premise that newborns do not have the same status as other living humans is a difficult premise to establish, since, actually, they do enjoy that same status. Legally and ethically, they are entitled the same consideration as a five-year-old or a fifty-year-old. While the authors can try to make the argument that newborns and fetuses are appreciably the same, science and the law do not agree with that argument.
The premise that newborns do not have the same status as other living humans is a difficult premise to establish, since, actually, they do enjoy that same status. Legally and ethically, they are entitled the same consideration as a five-year-old or a fifty-year-old. While the authors can try to make the argument that newborns and fetuses are appreciably the same, science and the law do not agree with that argument.
Yet. Remember, we're progressing and science changes.
Once upon a time life actually began at conception.
The premise that newborns do not have the same status as other living humans is a difficult premise to establish, since, actually, they do enjoy that same status.
"Marriage" had the status ever since it was created, of being a union of man and woman only.
But the leftist fanatics didn't have any trouble "establishing a new premise" for that long-established situation.
So don't go chickening out now.
SHOULD newborns have a different status from, say, a five-year-old?
Scientists who take a genetic view of when life begins..fertilization of egg and sperm as well as people who still maintain religious faith.
The Supreme Court ruled on fetal viability outside the womb as to when "life begins" which is further along in pregnancy. And for you that's all that matters.
Abortions should be cut off after the 2nd trimester, except in cases of health danger. Once a fetus reaches that 7th month, it should be considered a human being with all the rights. I find it hypocritical that a murdered pregnant (at any stage) woman equals two counts.
Yet. Remember, we're progressing and science changes.
Once upon a time life actually began at conception.
Baloney, it has always been life at birth and in some societies, many actually, life did not begin till the infant passed a certain time limit and was shown to not have birth defects that would impast that society or any hindrances to itself. It is only modern society and modern medicine that allows those that would not survive, to survive, often into adulthood and achieve reproduction. It is only us humans that put a value on all human life, including those that do not forward our species but may actually harm it. We do not do that with animals that are in production and nature does not do that either. Only the fittest are allowed to survive....
Baloney, it has always been life at birth and in some societies, many actually, life did not begin till the infant passed a certain time limit and was shown to not have birth defects that would impast that society or any hindrances to itself. It is only modern society and modern medicine that allows those that would not survive, to survive, often into adulthood and achieve reproduction. It is only us humans that put a value on all human life, including those that do not forward our species but may actually harm it. We do not do that with animals that are in production and nature does not do that either. Only the fittest are allowed to survive....
Unless you murder a pregnant woman and then you are tried for two murders.
"Marriage" had the status ever since it was created, of being a union of man and woman only.
But the leftist fanatics didn't have any trouble "establishing a new premise" for that long-established situation.
So don't go chickening out now.
SHOULD newborns have a different status from, say, a five-year-old?
Marriage didn't have that status since it was created. That's your fantasy speaking. Marriage initially was a contract between landed families to unite property. When property was not involved, there wasn't a need for such contracts, and the "unions" were much more casual. When societies evolved, and religion allied with the state as a mechanism to control the members of a society, then each society defined marriage, and other types of unions as each society needed to do so. It's only been during the last couple of centuries that the word "homosexuality" has even existed as a label. Historically, sex has always been sex. When Alexander the Great had sex with other men, it didn't raise an eyebrow. When Richard the Lion-hearted had sex with other men, the only interest his kingdom had was whether he would have an heir, or, when he died, if his kingdom would end up in the hands of his much-disliked brother.
Why should newborns have a different status from, say, a five-year-old? You're the one using SHOULD by the way, so don't chicken out now. Offer up an argument.
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.
