An internet oasis of open discussion without personal attacks
Maldon007 wrote:Spiral, is it so hard to see the point of view that sees the unborn as alive? And therefore deserving of protection?
For the sake of argument & understanding, give the pro-life people their live babies... Empathise, look at a fetus as being equal to a born baby. If you can, then see if maybe you would want to defend these babies from being killed.
If mothers routinely killed born babies, and it was legal, I would fight to change that practice/law... To them, it is the same... I can understand it, can you?
Spiral Out wrote:
When a woman unknown to you, being in an place unknown to you, has an abortion unknown to you, how does that cause an injury to you personally? What is your personal stake in that unborn?
Spiral Out wrote:That's quite my point, it is a question of degrees.
We all have draw that line somewhere. Different people just draw that line in different places.
Maldon007 wrote:Personally, I would draw the line at the point where, if the fetus was delivered & not aborted, it would have a decent chance at surviving to adulthood. I don't know what that is, maybe 6 months? And I'm sure it has changed & will change, but that is my line.
Scott wrote:Do you want it to be illegal for a Mary to hire a doctor and the doctor to perform the operation which leads to Jane's death despite Jane's protests? Yes or no? Yet, that doesn't resemble the abortion situation too much because the mother with the 5-day-late fetus can be surgically separated via c-section from her unborn child such that both mother and baby live just fine. So what if it is possible for the doctor to separate the twins such that they both live but Mary opts for an operation to have her sister killed and then removed, or Mary intentionally opts for a procedure that removes Jane in a a way leads to her dying rather than living?
Leninist wrote:1. This was the most challenging and interesting problem. However, I came to the conclusion that this is not a moral problem. Every single outcome ended up with an immoral act in consideration to our societies lifeworld. The answer was, to make it legal and let them sort it out. This is equivalent to the ecosystem, the lion that kills the buffalo or vice versa. Now you may think this sound extremely horrid, however, if she is determined to escape her situation then every action you take will only oppress someone else. It would be say, if I save the moth from the spiders web. Indeed, I felt good, however, the spider(for this example) does not have any food. This is not considered ignoring the problem, you are very much aware of it. It is a problem that situates itself in the state of nature.
Scott wrote:Do you want it to be illegal for the landlord to not take any of those options and instead evict the tenet immediately from the home to the tenets certain death? What if the landlord doesn't merely forcefully evict the tenet but actually shoots the tenet dead inside the house and then removes the dead body? Do you want that to be legal?
Leninist wrote:2. This was quite an easy one. The situations were not a cause of the inequalities in nature, but a contingent political social one - Land property.
Scott wrote:Imagine a mother just gave birth to a premature baby. She was just shy of 8-months pregnant let's say. To the midwife or doctor's, she seems happy, eager to be a mother and able to take. At a home a few days later she changes her mind and decides she doesn't want the baby and doesn't want to be a mother. She could bring the baby in to give up for adoption, but it would be somewhat inconvenient and may cost her some money such as the cost of gas to drive the baby or the cost of using her phone minutes to call around about it. So she just takes the baby outside and leaves her behind her backyard just over the property line. Maybe we can say she lives just slightly excluded enough that her neighbors wouldn't notice the crying for a few days while the baby starves to death. Do you want that to be legal? What if instead of leaving the baby to starve to death the mother kills the baby herself by drowning her in the bathtub or hiring a doctor or hitman to euthanize the infant (remember this is baby that has been born but only a few days prior)? Do you want that to be legal?
Leninist wrote:This is not just a case of the baby, but, the mental stability of the mother. There is no reason, in a society that accepts foster care ,why she shouldn't give it up to them. It is currently immoral and cruel to torture animals, so this, enhance, has a greater effect because the new born is considered the same species.
Scott wrote:What about if the baby is being delivered vaginally, she is out and everything is going fine but the umbilical cord is not cut yet and the mother says to kill the baby before cutting the umbilical cord? What if the baby's not fully out yet but her head is half way out and then they kill it before the rest of the head falls out of the vagina and living baby is born? Do you want that to be legal?
Leninist wrote:When the baby leaves her body then it ceases to be her baby if she wants to end its life, it ceases to infringe on her freedom. It becomes a baby of the state, the state can determine what will happen to it. Perhaps a nice nurse will take the new born home. A society that views abortion in this way does not necessarily have to be a cruel and malevolent society.
Scott wrote:Do you want that to be legal for Joe to back out and thus let his brother die? What if they don't just let his brother die, what if Joe actually kills his brother before his brother regains consciousness from the unfinished surgery? What if Joe hires the doctor to chemically inject Fred's unconscious body with poison (maybe because Joe doesn't want the inconvenience of explaining to Fred about how he didn't go through with surgery and he would die soon when Fred wakes up or because there is some minor expense or other inconvenience Fred would avoid by allowing Fred to wake up)? Do you want that to be legal?
Leninist wrote:5. This was a little difficult to answer because before surgery, patients are usually asleep. If they wake up prematurely they are not very coherent. However, lets say this one is, then yes, he has a right to leave. However, he might be charged with murder. I feel this is more of a legal issue. A contract does not have the power to enslave you, because it does not supersede the social contract. Unless of course your actions directly effect the social contract.
Scott wrote:So you want it to be legal for Mary to hire a doctor to separate her conjoined twin Jane against Jane's protests event though it will kill Jane? Are you also saying you want it to be legal for Mary to opt to a procedure that kills Jane even though the doctor could separate them without killing Jane? If so, I think you have contradicted yourself judging by your desire to criminalize infanticide even seconds after birth when the umbilical cord has not yet been cut.
Scott wrote:So what is your answer? Do you want it to be illegal or not?
Scott wrote:You seem to be contradicting yourself. How can you ot want actual infanticide to be illegal and vote for option B for the reasons you stated (e.g. "It is now said by neurologists that babies do not hold memories until at least the first year of their lives. The fetus [or newborn] is just flesh with instinctual desires and emotions. It doesn't know anything about the world or itself, it hasn't learned language and it has no experience. Knowing this, abortion [or infanticide] is not the same as killing a fellow human being who has gained self-awareness, who can express their desires, and who is generally, consciously, are trying to survive, escape from a concept called death.")? Remember, the baby in this example is significantly younger measuring from conception than the baby in option B that is able to be delivered easily and safely. The argument you gave for allowing a woman to kill the fetus 5-days after its due date even though it can be delivered safely applies equally if not more to this mother committing infanticide via neglect.
Scott wrote:At best, your argument seems to rely on highly arbitrary assumptions. Worse yet, it may be contradictory. You want it to be legal for a women to have doctors kill a fetus that is 5 days past its due date to stop it from safely popping out of her any minute, but you do not want it to be legal for the women to be able to have the doctor kill it while it is still connected by umbilical cord even if it is premature and thus younger and less developed then the fetus/baby you are allowing her to kill in the former example measuring age from conception. Don't you see the seeming contradiction?
Scott wrote: Accordingly, your argument seems to be that prior to the baby popping out of the vagina it is the woman's property and she can kill it or hire a doctor to kill it just like one can hire a vet to put down their own pet rabbit, but that after it is born even before the umbilical cord is cut it is the property of the state (assuming she does not want to raise it and keep it alive) and thus her killing it would be like me killing my neighbor's pet rabbit against my neighbor's will.
Scott wrote: This assumption of ownership and disregard for the rabbit/fetus/baby as being a victim at all may indeed save your argument from contradiction but it seems to arbitrary to be justifiable to me. To illustrate, is the baby still hers when only it's forehead is poking out of her vagina or has it become a baby of the state at that point? What about if it is all out except for one foot and right then the women decides she wants to have it killed rather than let it pop out the last inch? Is it hers or the states at that point? When exactly in the small handful of minutes between before the forehead pops out and after the baby is out but before the umbilical cord is cut does the baby become a baby of the state as opposed to being the property of the mother and thus you wanting her to be allowed to have it killed?
Scott wrote: They are all legal issues. The original question about abortion was a legal issue. I'm not asking if the abortion is "morally right" or not whatever that would mean; I asked whether or not it shall be legal. I'm not asking if it is "morally okay" for Joe to back out of the surgery; I am asking if you want it to be legal. It cannot be legal if he is charged with murder.
Scott wrote:What if Joe hires the doctor to chemically inject Fred's unconscious body with poison (maybe because Joe doesn't want the inconvenience of explaining to Fred about how he didn't go through with surgery and he would die soon when Fred wakes up or because there is some minor expense or other inconvenience Fred would avoid by allowing Fred to wake up)? Do you want that to be legal?
When is it "time to kill"?
And who decides when that time is?
Are there requirements: like one must be a certain age & be able to voice his/her opinion?
Leninist wrote:In other words, the operation is legal, what is not, is doing if Jane declines, it is done by force and she dies. If Jane and Mary live then even if Jane refused and was forced then perhaps the legal issue can be considered assault or some such which is directed at the doctor and Jane; depending on the situation and what happened.
Leninist wrote:I honestly cannot answer when the new-born becomes state a state issue(even if this should be the case). I think this has to be answered on the spot, at the discretion of the doctors; when she considers herself free from being oppressed. The doctors job is a safe birth and to release her burden - that is, the baby. Even though your questions are important, there are just too many variables to calculate.
Leninist wrote: Yes it should be legal to kill a baby while the cord is still connected.
Scott wrote:Fair enough. But what are these variables? Do they indeed converge so narrowly around the few moments when the baby pops out and the umbilical cord is cut with other factors like gestational age or the fetuses/infant's mental capabilities/sentience?
Scott wrote:What about 10 seconds after the cord is cut? 10 minutes?
Scott wrote:Why do you not afford the same protections you give to Jane to the fetus whose mother wants to kill it shortly after it pops out but is still connected by umbilical cord? Remember, measuring by gestational age it is older (and healthier, more alter, having more memories, etc.) than many newborn babies and yet you want it to became illegal to kill even premature newborn babies around the time the umbilical cord is cut, which seems to mean you have disregarded the potential of basing the legality of killing the baby/adult-conjoined-twin on its intrinsic so-called right to life (i.e. based on qualities like brainpower, level of consciousnesses, etc. that differ for example from a 3-month fetus and a 3-year-old child in positive correlation to age and development).
Leninist wrote:Yes it should be legal to kill a baby while the cord is still connected.
Scott wrote:What about 10 seconds after the cord is cut? 10 minutes?
Leninist wrote:Yes, humanely. I don't really enjoy talking about this subject, nevertheless, I think I'm being logical in this matter. Would I do this? No. Would I pass a law that stated you can kill babies? No. My answers here are purely emotional moralities that I have been institutionalized to. If I was, say, a Spartan, this wouldn't be an issue.
Leninist wrote:I think what is important in these cases is when to logically feel empathetic towards babies, not to let our emotional desires override what is actually going on in reality. Our empathetic nature is a good thing, it lets us form a connection with other people. I also think it is a necessity for developing our identity. Nonetheless, understanding what we truly value in our fellow human being is imperative. What is valued is not just flesh, it is the developing individual. A baby that has no memories, no understanding of its being, is in fact similar to an animal.
The torture of animals is illegal, and I suspect, because we understand the pain, it is a connection of emotions which we learn from childhood. We do however kill animals on a large scale, because we do not share our identity with them(most of us anyway). Now I'm not saying we should all become baby killers, however, we should recognize what we value in our fellow human being.
ABC News wrote:In a study of 100 of pregnant women in the Netherlands, researchers say they found evidence that fetuses have short-term memory of sounds by the 30th week of pregnancy, and develop a long-term memory of sound after that.
Scientific American wrote:Fetuses habituate in other ways, too. Substance-abusing moms give birth to drug-addicted babies. A study found that the babies of mothers who watch a popular Spanish-language soap opera while pregnant calm down when they hear the show’s theme music. And anecdotally, some dads who read to fetuses in the womb think their babies are born recognizing their voices, says pediatrician Tanya Remer Altmann, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics.
N.L. GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ1, M.N. SUAREZ, B. PEREZ-PIÑERO, H. ARMAS, E. DOMENECH, J.L. BARTHA wrote: Newborns who were stimulated in utero habituated earlier than those who had not previously experienced the stimulation. These results suggest that fetal memory persists into neonatal life.
Spring.org.uk wrote:What Rovee and Rovee (1969) found was that even infants as young as 8 weeks old could learn the association between kicking and the mobile movement.
In one experiment infants only 8-weeks-old were trained with the mobile over a period of 3 days for 9 minutes each day. Twenty-four hours later the infants only kicked at above their baseline levels when the same mobile was above their heads. This showed they remembered the particular mobile they had been trained with and not just any old mobile. It was an especially exciting finding because it had previously been thought that long-term memory (and 24 hours is long-term for psychologists) didn't emerge until as late as 8 or 9 months.
Scott wrote:Rombomb, what is a preference that we create?
Scott wrote:So you are opposed to aborting a fetus in the third trimester?
Scott wrote:Incidentally, age 7 or so is considered the age of reason in humans.
Users browsing this forum: Dachshund and 4 guests