Abortion

@Peter phil,

Couldn't pull up the sight. Killing Babies, Compassionately
I would like to see it. Most of the information I was able to find was back in 2006. Most of those were lauding the Netherlands as performing the least number of abortions. Now that the word "euthanasia" is being used, opens up another bucket of worms. Not disallowing your apt assessment, I will reserve further comment until I have an opportunity to view the sights you quote, knowing the internet is probably the worst place to find acccurate information. At any rate I would like to read it.
If you can find another way to access the sight, let me know.
Thanks,
William

0 Replies

@averroes,

averroes wrote:

Take a look at this article. Does anything seem wrong to you when you read this?

Many:

1. The Godwin fallacy: The Nazis are evil, so all actions are evil if they were also perpetrated by the Nazis. It is completely inconsequential that this is similar to any Nazi action.

2. "Of course it is the act of killing disabled and dying babies that is wrong, not the motivation." How a lawyer could muster this statement is incredible. Motivation has always been a key aspect in concluding whether something is wrong. In fact, it is the aspect that he mentions but doesn't seem to care about that is key to this issue: Social control vs. maintaining a certain quality of life if so desired. The Nazis did one, the dutch government is doing another. Personally I think that the Dutch government did a rather good job at creating guidelines for judging potential quality of life.

3. Calling Baby Knauer "one of the first victims of the holocaust." Is he attempting to redefine the holocaust so it means absolutely nothing?

4. Calling the euthanasia of Baby Knauer "murder". Murder is a legal term, and as such was not murder. His calling it murder is a rhetorical tactic to taint the view of the reader without providing any further evidence. In fact, I cannot see anywhere where he actually provides any argument for why such procedures are are wrong. He obviously wishes to overload the reader with negative connotations, rather than provide substantial argument.

My summation of the article for anyone who wishes to skip it:

"How can they kill babies? The Nazis did it! Thats horrible, isn't?!"

0 Replies

@Peter phil,

I personally do not agree with the author of the article, I am only proving what there is an infant euthanasia law in Holland. I don't really care about the 'good intentions' behind this law. It implies killing another human being without even so much as their permission. Tell me that that isn't infanticide. Have you ever met a person who was born with a defect? did that defect make less than a human being?
And in response to William's comment on the low abortion rate in Holland, that is because they have a huge promotion for contraceptives (something that I have no quarrel with) and a huge amount of sterilizations. The latter I have several problems with, but I realize that that would simply lead to a very long tangent.

And yes, I realize that euthanasia is a different topic. My point is that abortion is a slippery slope.

0 Replies

@Peter phil,

Peter wrote:

At a local philosophy discussion group which I attend, we got round to discussing the ethics of abortion (a hot topic, I know!)

I said that I was dissatisfied with my own ideas on this topic. I am clear that at the beginning of the pregnancy, all or virtually all the rights are with the mother. Equally, by the later stages, the preponderance of rights lie with the foetus. My problem is that I can find no clear point at which the foetus becomes a child with attendant rights. No such sharp transition exists, just as there is no single point at which a child becomes an adult. Both are developmental processes, not step processes. So when the law fixes an age at which the foetus "becomes" a child, or the child "becomes" an adult, we all know these are necessary fictions.

One consideration that would be relevant in determining the cut-off point for abortion is the stage at which the foetus becomes sensitive to any pain incurred during the abortion process. But when does pain-sensitivity start? Looking at different websites I see that estimates vary widely, from 15 weeks to 28 weeks - and guess what - these estimates are closely correlated with the ideological stances of the writers. Those who have a liberal attitude to abortion place the onset of pain-sensitivity late in gestation, anti-abortionists insist that it begins early.

Is there any hope of some neutral authoritative information on this crucial question?

Peter

Not going to go into the ethics of the issue. Others can hash that out.

But I wonder, how many that oppose the action, would be willing to adopt and support the child. Not many I suppose.

I liked Mother Teresa. She said, if you do not want the child, give them to me. And quite a few did. And she took care of them.

At least she offered a solution, and not just an opinion.

0 Replies

@averroes,

averroes;44275 wrote:

Here's a little fun fact:
In Holland, they made abortion legal. eventually, the period in which you could get an abortion grew until you could get one the day you were expected to give birth. Soon, another law was passed that allowed euthanasia to be administered to a baby within the first month or two if there were any defects in the baby.
Does this seem utterly inhumane? before you answer, take a moment to listen to this. A new law is trying to be passed, extending the euthanasia period to a full year of age. a full year of age.

I'm assuming this law won't let you euthanize a normal 10 month old. Perhaps that law is indended for, say, ventilator-dependant 10 month old with anencephaly who is biologically incapable of ever being conscious, and will experience pain but without possibility for reward, and who will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to live hooked up to machines for the 1-2 years of possible longevity.

Do you know the answer to this one before you use it as rhetoric?

averroes;44364 wrote:

Have you ever met a person who was born with a defect?

Yes, I take care of them routinely. And I've seen a tremendous amount of suffering for nothing.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I'm assuming this law won't let you euthanize a normal 10 month old. Perhaps that law is indended for, say, ventilator-dependant 10 month old with anencephaly who is biologically incapable of ever being conscious, and will experience pain but without possibility for reward, and who will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to live hooked up to machines for the 1-2 years of possible longevity.

Do you know the answer to this one before you use it as rhetoric?

Yes, I take care of them routinely. And I've seen a tremendous amount of suffering for nothing.

There is the choice of not having the child hooked to a machine. My point isn't that we should sadistically force people in pain to live as long as we can keep them alive. I believe in the exact opposite. What I am saying is that directly killing a child, no matter what the circumstances are, is murder.
Let me put it in this perspective. It is alright to kill a child if he or she will have below-normal capacity and have no true independence. That argument could be used word-for-word to justify the killing of a five-year-old with mental retardation. Where is there morality in that situation?:listening:

0 Replies

@Peter phil,

Before you ask rhetorical questions, have you taken the time to determine to whom this law specifically does or does not apply?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know