Abortion.What do you think about it?

Didn't you believe that we are evolved from those same monkeys? Do animals, other than humans, abort? I don't mean papa lion killing the young after they are born.

Didn't you believe that we are evolved from those same monkeys?

Intrepid wrote:

Didn't you believe that we are evolved from those same monkeys? Do animals, other than humans, abort? I don't mean papa lion killing the young after they are born.

Of course you don't. That would defeat your arguement. You can't pick and choose. Citing nature certainly doesn't build a good case for outlawing abortion. poor choice of examples on your behalf.

Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge
By Francis Elliott, Whitehall Editor
Published: 05 November 2006

Doctors are urging health regulators to consider allowing the "active euthanasia" of severely disabled newborn babies.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology has put forward the option of permitting mercy killings of the sickest infants to a review of medical ethics.

It says "active euthanasia" should be considered for the overall benefit of families who would otherwise suffer years of emotional and financial suffering.

Deliberate action to end infants' lives may also reduce the number of late abortions, since it would allow women the chance to decide whether their disabled child should live.

"A very disabled child can mean a disabled family. If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making," the college writes in a submission to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

"We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test, and active euthanasia, as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns."

Such mercy killings are already allowed in the Netherlands for incurable conditions such as severe spina bifida. John Harris, a member of the official Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University, welcomed the college's submission. "We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term, but cannot kill a newborn," he told The Sunday Times. "What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it OK to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not the other?"

Dr Pieter Sauer, co-author of the Groningen Protocol, the guidelines governing infant euthanasia in the Netherlands, said British medics already carry out mercy killings and should be allowed to do so in the open. "English neonatologists gave me the indication that this is happening."

But the paper quoted John Wyatt, consultant neonatologist at University College Hospital, as saying: "Intentional killing is not part of medical care... once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing you change the fundamental nature of medicine. It becomes a subjective decision of whose life is worthwhile."

Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People said: "Euthanasia for disabled newborns tells society that being born disabled is a bad thing. If we introduced euthanasia for certain conditions, it would tell adults with those conditions that they are worth less than other members of society."

Doctors are urging health regulators to consider allowing the "active euthanasia" of severely disabled newborn babies.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology has put forward the option of permitting mercy killings of the sickest infants to a review of medical ethics.

It says "active euthanasia" should be considered for the overall benefit of families who would otherwise suffer years of emotional and financial suffering.

Deliberate action to end infants' lives may also reduce the number of late abortions, since it would allow women the chance to decide whether their disabled child should live.

"A very disabled child can mean a disabled family. If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making," the college writes in a submission to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

"We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test, and active euthanasia, as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns."

Such mercy killings are already allowed in the Netherlands for incurable conditions such as severe spina bifida. John Harris, a member of the official Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University, welcomed the college's submission. "We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term, but cannot kill a newborn," he told The Sunday Times. "What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it OK to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not the other?"

Dr Pieter Sauer, co-author of the Groningen Protocol, the guidelines governing infant euthanasia in the Netherlands, said British medics already carry out mercy killings and should be allowed to do so in the open. "English neonatologists gave me the indication that this is happening."

But the paper quoted John Wyatt, consultant neonatologist at University College Hospital, as saying: "Intentional killing is not part of medical care... once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing you change the fundamental nature of medicine. It becomes a subjective decision of whose life is worthwhile."

Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People said: "Euthanasia for disabled newborns tells society that being born disabled is a bad thing. If we introduced euthanasia for certain conditions, it would tell adults with those conditions that they are worth less than other members of society."

If humans are simply smart animals, why is it not alright for humans to kill their young after birth as some other animals do?

What is the difference between that and abortion?

In the evolutionary view, birth is just another day of growth and development on an animal.

Why is killing babies after birth any different from killing before?

real life wrote:

If humans are simply smart animals, why is it not alright for humans to kill their young after birth as some other animals do?

The law forbids it.

real life wrote:

What is the difference between that and abortion?

One involves killing a fully formed human being, the other does not.

real life wrote:

Why is killing babies after birth any different from killing before?

Because we are hard wired by evolution to want to keep our young alive.

"Infanticide" <-- Great marketable value.

If any person, young or old is suffering, they should have the right to be released from their pain.

Now having said that, there is plenty of separation in these issues. Enough that trying to make ethical comparissons is pointless.

Doktor S wrote:

real life wrote:

If humans are simply smart animals, why is it not alright for humans to kill their young after birth as some other animals do?

The law forbids it.

Aren't all matters of right and wrong simply matters of opinion, in your view?

Doktor S wrote:

real life wrote:

What is the difference between that and abortion?

One involves killing a fully formed human being, the other does not.

When EXACTLY is the human being 'fully formed'?

Doktor S wrote:

real life wrote:

Why is killing babies after birth any different from killing before?

Because we are hard wired by evolution to want to keep our young alive.

Then why do some humans kill their young?

If humans are simply smart animals, why is it not alright for humans to kill their young after birth as some other animals do?

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

real life wrote:

If humans are simply smart animals, why is it not alright for humans to kill their young after birth as some other animals do?

The law forbids it.

Aren't all matters of right and wrong simply matters of opinion, in your view?

Yes.

Quote:

Doktor S wrote:

real life wrote:

What is the difference between that and abortion?

One involves killing a fully formed human being, the other does not.

When EXACTLY is the human being 'fully formed'?

Birth.

Quote:

Doktor S wrote:

real life wrote:

Why is killing babies after birth any different from killing before?

Because we are hard wired by evolution to want to keep our young alive.

Then why do some humans kill their young?

Anomalies. Rare because that behavior is not benificial to replication.

Then they must not be 'hard wired' correctly? You have physical evidence of that, or just your opinion? Specifically what 'wiring' is not correct?

Quote:

Then they must not be 'hard wired' correctly? You have physical evidence of that, or just your opinion? Specifically what 'wiring' is not correct?

My opinion, supported by the volumous collection of information that constitutes evolutionary theory.
Deviations/mutations aren't always benificial but natural selection has a way of eliminating self destructive memes.

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Then they must not be 'hard wired' correctly? You have physical evidence of that, or just your opinion? Specifically what 'wiring' is not correct?

My opinion, supported by the volumous collection of information that constitutes evolutionary theory.
Deviations/mutations aren't always beneficial but natural selection has a way of eliminating self destructive memes.

So if you have specific physical evidence that people who kill their children aren't 'hard wired' correctly, then out with it.

Put it on the table.

Otherwise you are simply blowing smoke.

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Then they must not be 'hard wired' correctly? You have physical evidence of that, or just your opinion? Specifically what 'wiring' is not correct?

My opinion, supported by the volumous collection of information that constitutes evolutionary theory.
Deviations/mutations aren't always beneficial but natural selection has a way of eliminating self destructive memes.

So if you have specific physical evidence that people who kill their children aren't 'hard wired' correctly, then out with it.

Put it on the table.

Otherwise you are simply blowing smoke.

You miss the point completely. There is no 'correctly'. That implies some ultimate design to be lived up to. That's your style not mine.
There is what works and furthers genetic material, and what doesn't.
Killing your children is counterproductive behavior in this respect, obviously. I wouldn't think you would need this explained to you.

Diest TKO wrote:

"Infanticide" <-- Great marketable value.

What else is it when newborns are put to death, rather than cared for?

Diest TKO wrote:

If any person, young or old is suffering, they should have the right to be released from their pain.

Should the sufferer make that decision for themselves or should another make it?

How 'much' suffering is 'too much'?

What if a cure is around the corner and you kill the person because you thought they suffered too much, but they could be cured if you had let them live?

Diest TKO wrote:

Now having said that, there is plenty of separation in these issues. Enough that trying to make ethical comparissons is pointless.

It is not pointless if babies are going to be euthanized. It's not a 'theoretical' argument. It's really gonna happen and does happen now.

Do you support it?

Doktor S wrote:

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Then they must not be 'hard wired' correctly? You have physical evidence of that, or just your opinion? Specifically what 'wiring' is not correct?

My opinion, supported by the volumous collection of information that constitutes evolutionary theory.
Deviations/mutations aren't always beneficial but natural selection has a way of eliminating self destructive memes.

So if you have specific physical evidence that people who kill their children aren't 'hard wired' correctly, then out with it.

Put it on the table.

Otherwise you are simply blowing smoke.

You miss the point completely. There is no 'correctly'. That implies some ultimate design to be lived up to. That's your style not mine.
There is what works and furthers genetic material, and what doesn't.
Killing your children is counterproductive behavior in this respect, obviously. I wouldn't think you would need this explained to you.

Your claim is that 'evolution' has 'hard wired' humans to produce a certain behavior.

When I point out that some humans do the opposite, you are unable to substantiate your claim with any real evidence of 'hard wiring'.

Only your opinion gets repeated over and over.

It is about what I expected really. I just thought it might be entertaining if you tried to produce evidence to back your claim.

But actually it has been a lot of fun watching you back away from your own words.

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

"Infanticide" <-- Great marketable value.

What else is it when newborns are put to death, rather than cared for?

Diest TKO wrote:

If any person, young or old is suffering, they should have the right to be released from their pain.

Should the sufferer make that decision for themselves or should another make it?

How 'much' suffering is 'too much'?

What if a cure is around the corner and you kill the person because you thought they suffered too much, but they could be cured if you had let them live?

Diest TKO wrote:

Now having said that, there is plenty of separation in these issues. Enough that trying to make ethical comparissons is pointless.

It is not pointless if babies are going to be euthanized. It's not a 'theoretical' argument. It's really gonna happen and does happen now.

Do you support it?

First, "newborns" aren't being put to death.

Such mercy killings are already allowed in the Netherlands for incurable conditions such as severe spina bifida.

Dr Pieter Sauer, co-author of the Groningen Protocol, the guidelines governing infant euthanasia in the Netherlands, said British medics already carry out mercy killings and should be allowed to do so in the open. "English neonatologists gave me the indication that this is happening."

Second, yes the sufferer should be the one who makes that kind of choice, but comparing this to abortion is ridiculous. If a fertilized egg gets lodged in the filopian (<--bad spell) tube, the mother should be able to choose to abort rather than carry an unsucceful and potetially leathal pregnancy to term. "Tubals" are probably significantly more commmon than pregnancies that come to full term with newborns (out of the womb, fool) with serious disorders.

Lastly, even if newborns are euthanized for serious medical reasons, I'm still more comfortable with a mother/couple making that choice rather than anybody else. I think that if a family had to make a choice like that it would be incredibly difficult and would be a very trying issue. You're a bastard if you'd judge them for it. Especially if they wanted the child.

BTW, move the evolution discussion to another thread. It doesn't belong in this thread at all. Debating it in the first place is ridiculous, because it presupposes that the scientific community as a majority is undecided about this issue.

Hard wired or not, mother/couples choice. Right choice, wrong choice, but the choice remains in the hands of the people who it should belong to.

As a side note. You meantioned that a "cure" might just be around the corner. Here in MO, amendment 2 is being vicsiously attacked by so called "pro-life" people because it would harvest stem cells (all varieties) and clone them. Pro-life? laughable. IT's just a guise to the religious agenda.

Stem cell research could save more live in the future than all the born babies in the world could ever do. It could improve the quality of life to a great degree. Pro-life, isn't about being for humanity, it's all too often about being pro-church. RL, you can cite all the reasons in the world outside of religion why you think what you do, but deep down your opinion is deeply based on what you believe is moral (a spiritual measure). You can't stand that others think different than you and that they have their own reasons.