KILL unwanted or disabled babies at birth as they are not a real person'

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Chris

... you should have morally and logically consistent reasons why you draw the time limit where you do...

I thought the time limit for abortion was due to viability outside of the womb, which is a moral (of sorts) and logical reason.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Chris

Actually, there's plenty to discuss precisely because the original suggestion was not supposed to be taken seriously - or, at least, it wasn't supposed to be the start of a campaign for a change in policy on abortion. So far as I can see, it was a theoretical, academic discussion designed to focus thought on the ethics of abortion and the definition of personhood. At the heart of it was the argument that by a common and widely accepted definition of personhood, post-natal abortion is logically just as ethical as pre-natal abortion.

If you offer moral and logical reasons why abortion should every be acceptable under any circumstances, then you should have morally and logically consistent reasons why you draw the time limit where you do.

---------- Post added at 12:54 ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 ----------



The child and the mother both figure in this equation. Which is worse: killing a child or counselling a victim of crime?

The only use of abortion should be in cases of rape and for medical reasons, otherwise, it is unethical!

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

The only use of abortion should be in cases of rape and for medical reasons, otherwise, it is unethical!

What about cases like that of Rhys Biggs, who died two months after being born:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...baby-Rhys.html

Originally Posted by danielf

Correct me if I'm wrong, but current 'cutoffs' for abortion are not set according to a definition of personhood but rather on viability of existence outside the womb?

The question of a cut-off only arises because abortion has already been deemed acceptable. The heart of the issue, morally, is whether abortion is acceptable in the first place.

The cut-off date is entirely arbitrary. It is, more or less, the limit of viability according to current medical technology and practice. Fifty years ago, viability would have been much later. Fifty years from now, it will most likely be somewhat earlier.

It is often stated that the unborn child is not a person but is a 'potential person'. This ultimately is the justification for ever carrying out an abortion. The academic paper in question here argues that personhood is established after a child is born and that by that logic, the 24-week limit (or any limit in any country where abortion is carried out) makes no sense.

That is a highly subjective question, and the 'obvious' answer depends very much on the semantics of how the question is posed. Suffice to say though, that at short notice, my sympathies are firmly with the mother.

By 'semantics' I assume you're thinking of my insistence on referring to the inhabitant of the womb as a 'child' rather than a dehumanized term like 'embryo' or 'foetus'. I have framed the question the way I have because personally I have no doubt that every one of those that has had its life ended by abortion was an actual, real, human child whose right to life was curtailed.

I don't think it's a case of either/or with regards to sympathy. In a case of rape the facts are awful for both mother and child. But only one course of action results in a death.

Again, however, 'death' is semantics, isn't it, if you don't believe that an actual human being really died. Which brings us back to the question posed by the academics. If the inhabitant of the womb is not a person, at what point does it become one?

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Chris

... If the inhabitant of the womb is not a person, at what point does it become one?

I suppose you would say that the moment a sperm and egg fuse, a person is formed. If so, what is your opinion of IUDs and other methods of contragestion?

Mrs T and I never contemplated an IUD for precisely that reason.

[iFrankie]

How could anyone hate their own child just because they have a disability, i always thought having a child was the most amazing thing ever, your suppose to love the child even before its born no matter what, baffles me.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

The question of a cut-off only arises because abortion has already been deemed acceptable. The heart of the issue, morally, is whether abortion is acceptable in the first place.

The cut-off date is entirely arbitrary. It is, more or less, the limit of viability according to current medical technology and practice. Fifty years ago, viability would have been much later. Fifty years from now, it will most likely be somewhat earlier.

Actually, I don't think it is 'entirely' arbitrary, as there are good reasons for an objective definition for what it means to be able to exist independently: without medical intervention. Leaving aside the fact that a baby can't feed itself, there are measures such as being able to breath independently. The very same issue arises with terminally ill patients. Doctors can decide to withhold treatment when it's perfectly possible to keep a patient alive. As such, what is possible and acceptable are different things (though we may disagree regarding what is acceptable).

It is often stated that the unborn child is not a person but is a 'potential person'. This ultimately is the justification for ever carrying out an abortion. The academic paper in question here argues that personhood is established after a child is born and that by that logic, the 24-week limit (or any limit in any country where abortion is carried out) makes no sense.

Yes, and I don't agree with the position in the paper. It's a though-provoking topic, which to be honest, I've not given much thought. I'd be hard pressed to consider a merged sperm and egg cell a person, and I'd be hard pressed to not consider a just born baby not a person. Where one becomes to other is indeed a big old can of worms.

By 'semantics' I assume you're thinking of my insistence on referring to the inhabitant of the womb as a 'child' rather than a dehumanized term like 'embryo' or 'foetus'. I have framed the question the way I have because personally I have no doubt that every one of those that has had its life ended by abortion was an actual, real, human child whose right to life was curtailed.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant.

I don't think it's a case of either/or with regards to sympathy. In a case of rape the facts are awful for both mother and child. But only one course of action results in a death.

Actually, in the case of rape, the consequences for the child are good, as it goes from not existing to becoming a person. Which then leads us to the question whether every life is worth living. That is: is it better to not live or be born as a child that isn't wanted, or be born into circumstances where the mother is not able or willing to properly provide for a child.

Again, however, 'death' is semantics, isn't it, if you don't believe that an actual human being really died. Which brings us back to the question posed by the academics. If the inhabitant of the womb is not a person, at what point does it become one?

It is indeed, and as I said, it's a big can of worms. Ultimately though, this is an issue of pragmatics as much as anything else. Abortions will happen, and if we outlawed them we'd be back to backstreet abortions, which I'm sure you're no fan of either. I'm not convinced that personhood starts just after conception, but I don't think it's right to kill just-born babies either. So we need some cutoff, and a criterion of being able to exist outside the womb seems sensible to me. That's not to say we should think lightly about abortion, but unfortunately, abortion is a fact of life (so to speak).

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

What about cases like that of Rhys Biggs, who died two months after being born:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...baby-Rhys.html

Take their babies from them!

There is another question which i feel is being forgotten .Is it ethically responsible to 'force life' on a severely disabled baby ?.A woman can have a late abortion(after 24weeks) stating severe disability as the reason which most find acceptible so should we force such a child to live?
The potential for life is there ,no question about that but what quality of life is there ?and should we concider that much more than we do at the moment ?.The answer to all those questions depends greatly on the severity of the disability but when should society deem a disability is severe enough to not have any or very little quality of life

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

There is another question which i feel is being forgotten .Is it ethically responsible to 'force life' on a severely disabled baby ?.A woman can have a late abortion(after 24weeks) stating severe disability as the reason which most find acceptible so should we force such a child to live?
The potential for life is there ,no question about that but what quality of life is there ?and should we concider that much more than we do at the moment ?.The answer to all those questions depends greatly on the severity of the disability but when should society deem a disability is severe enough to not have any or very little quality of life

The answer to that question is, in my opinion, up to the parents. I think it is good the option is there, but no-one should be forced either way. Having said that, if you're going to have an abortion, then it should be done as early as possible.

Originally Posted by danielf

The answer to that question is, in my opinion, up to the parents. I think it is good the option is there, but no-one should be forced either way. Having said that, if you're going to have an abortion, then it should be done as early as possible.

What about after birth ?should a baby born with a severe disability be forced to live because society says so .Indeed we could ask the question should we force life on anyone with such disabilities?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

What about after birth ?should a baby born with a severe disability be forced to live because society says so .Indeed we could ask the question should we force life on anyone with such disabilities?

That is an extremely difficult question to answer given that the person involved is not able to articulate his or her wishes. Best judge each case separately there...

Originally Posted by danielf

That is an extremely difficult question to answer given that the person involved is not able to articulate his or her wishes. Best judge each case separately there...

That's how i see it ,it certainly isn't something i would ever want to have to make a decision on .Also where do we stop ?.If society starts allowing euthenasia for new born disabled babies as we do in the womb ,do we allow the same for car crash victims who can't speak for themselves and have no quality of life ?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

That's how i see it ,it certainly isn't something i would ever want to have to make a decision on .Also where do we stop ?.If society starts allowing euthenasia for new born disabled babies as we do in the womb ,do we allow the same for car crash victims who can't speak for themselves and have no quality of life ?

I think a case can be made for not treating someone who is unable to sustain life unassisted. Beyond that things get very murky.

I'm actually in favour of allowing euthanasia for those who can speak for themselves, or those who have indicated they would prefer it if a certain set of circumstances should arise. I'm not so sure about those who can't speak for themselves.