"Ethicists" at Oxford endorse "after birth abortion"

[notquiteright]

Try not to be so deflective.

I don't need to give medical/scientific/egg-headed reasons for why viability is at a certain time IN the womb- THAT has been well documented and I will leave it to secular experts who have testified repeatedly. I do believe using viability to determine the line between fetus and person is the best solution to the question.

You want a different line be it zygote or 3 year old is fine my me. Just don't agree that opinion should be law. Abortion isn't a cake walk for women, it is divisive in our society. I thought Roe v Wade was and still is an acceptable compromise.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Try reading this again absent of your baseless condescension.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Still haven't managed to answer the question. Do you need me to write it in crayon?

I've been over very similar items with him (in this very thread no less). I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Still haven't managed to answer the question. Do you need me to write it in crayon?

I think you need to write the question 5 times in a row before he stops deflecting and makes a failing attempt of an answer.

[sky writer]

Not one woman in this thread. Interesting.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by sky writer

Not one woman in this thread. Interesting.

Total Relevancy: Zero.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by sky writer

Not one woman in this thread. Interesting.

Oh I beg to differ...

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Oh I beg to differ...

That literally made me bust out laughing. I don't know why, but it literally brought tears to my eyes.

[wanna be drummer]

Oh no...


Winter is here...

[The Great Catpiss]

I like the new Donkey.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss

I like the new Donkey.

This is the same old Donkey...without the assholes ganging up on him constantly and insulting me.

[sky writer]

What possible relevance could a woman provide to the discussion of the ethics of abortion?

Do men get abortions?

What's disingenous about this article is that Oxford ethicists are discussing "personhood" not infanticide. Scholars tend to be so far removed from the actual issue that they can discuss topics like these with no care to the implications.

This is what they actually said,

"The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

What the ethicists are addressing is the debate on the ethics of killing or allowing severely ill or disabled newborns to die. The withdrawal of medical care (an intentional act that kills) is a standard part of care of newborns with severe disability and suffering in the UK, US, rest of Europe and nearly all of the world. This is sometimes called passive euthanasia.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Oh, so much crazy it's difficult to know where to start.

Originally Posted by sky writer

What possible relevance could a woman provide to the discussion of the ethics of abortion? Do men get abortions?

A woman's opinion is certainly relevant, but the fact that no woman had opined until your post (that we know of, anyway) is completely irrelevant.

Regarding your quip about whether men get abortions, again that is irrelevant. First, many believe men should have some say in the matter; after all, it is their child, too. Second, implying that because men do not actually have the abortion their opinion is less relevant is like saying those members of society not in the military should have no say in whether the nation goes to war. And it'd also be like saying that because, back in the day, women couldn't vote or go to war, they should have no say in national affairs at all. Since I'm sure you don't find that logic very appealing, perhaps you should think through your position more thoroughly.

Originally Posted by sky writer

What's disingenous about this article is that Oxford ethicists are discussing "personhood" not infanticide. Scholars tend to be so far removed from the actual issue that they can discuss topics like these with no care to the implications.

Hey, you can call it whatever you want, but just because the ethicists (or anyone else) claim the object of their attack isn't a person, doesn't change the fact that a living, breathing, new born infant is a person and killing it is murder, except under the rarest of circumstances.

Originally Posted by sky writer

This is what they actually said,

"The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Oh, I think they said so much more than just that.

Originally Posted by sky writer

What the ethicists are addressing is the debate on the ethics of killing or allowing severely ill or disabled newborns to die. The withdrawal of medical care (an intentional act that kills) is a standard part of care of newborns with severe disability and suffering in the UK, US, rest of Europe and nearly all of the world. This is sometimes called passive euthanasia.

Actively killing is not the same thing as allowing to die. "Pulling the plug" so-to-speak is not the cause of the death (neither in-fact or proximately); usually, causation results from some other factor. That is different than failure to act where there is a legal duty to act resulting in death, or affirmatively engaging in some sort of prohibited conduct that legally ("but for") and proximately (foreseeably) causes unlawful death. Besides, withdrawal of medical care after numerous failed efforts to sustain and save life, and consideration of whether such care is likely to be successful (whether refusing further medical care for oneself or for a principal who has given consent to an agent to decide such matters), is much different than saying when a newborn is born "Oh, they're a retard? Eh, just dump it in the trash. After all, it's not a person deserving of life, amitire?"

[sky writer]

Men have a say in a woman's pregnancy when they take responsibility. They don't have wombs. Their own bodies aren't involved in a pregnancy.

What a woman has to say about terminating a pregnancy takes precedence, especially due to the health risks she may incur.

Allowing a child with severe abnormalities who is suffering, and who is not going to recover to die naturally is an act of mercy.

What the ethicists are addressing is the question of when does a fetus become a person. I think it's also a legal question.

Infanticide is not something I feel comfortable supporting.

We are talking real life complicated situations in childbirth and it's aftermath. All I know is, I would want the family empowered to make whatever decisions are the most humane for them.

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by sky writer

This place is a boys club.

About 8 years ago, I saw a chart showing the statistics with the difference in men interested in politics vs women interested in politics. It's pretty disturbing how few women actually care or even know about the real issues.

I think the numbers have greatly changed in the last 4 years though... I don't know.