Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Page 4 of 4 [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Mar 2013, 6:45 am

thomas81 wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
I get the instinct to have sex, but reproduction does not necessarily follow. I guess there's some sort of feeling of being able to exist over a greater amount of time, but I just don't get it. I've avoided getting pregnant because I wouldn't wish a lifetime on Earth on my worst enemy. I've never been in the position to have an abortion, and I'm not sure if I would or not. God vs common sense - life is a burden, there is no greatness, only glimpses of it. But still, it seems a shame to snuff a new life out.


At what point does a new life become a new life though? Is it when the sperm and egg meet?

.


Sperm plus egg produce a zygote which is alive. But that is NOT the issue. The issue is when does a zygote develop into a human person. Only persons have rights. Living masses of tissue, AS SUCH, are not rights bearers. your skin is alive. Is it a person?

ruveyn



ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 715

06 Mar 2013, 7:58 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sperm plus egg produce a zygote which is alive. But that is NOT the issue. The issue is when does a zygote develop into a human person. Only persons have rights. Living masses of tissue, AS SUCH, are not rights bearers. your skin is alive. Is it a person?

ruveyn


Gradualy. However, the legal frontier has to be made in a prochoice country. Puting the frontier after birth is a dangerous concept of eugenics. If the line is only after birth, why not kill people with mental retardation? Or people who have degenerative diseases? Or autistics? Or people who are not blonde and blue eyed?

I'm not saying you're defending the after birth abortion (presumably not!), just making a point on the importance of a pre-birth legal line in case the state has a prochoice law.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,593
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

06 Mar 2013, 8:10 am

ModusPonens wrote:
Gradualy. However, the legal frontier has to be made in a prochoice country. Puting the frontier after birth is a dangerous concept of eugenics. If the line is only after birth, why not kill people with mental retardation? Or people who have degenerative diseases? Or autistics? Or people who are not blonde and blue eyed?

If your concerned about this wait till you get a load of transhumanism and the singularity.



ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 715

06 Mar 2013, 9:28 am

In a singularity scenario, there will be a lot of people who gather in communities to live only with the technology they have right before it happens. If the day comes I think I'll be one of those people, with the exception of medical technology.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,593
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

06 Mar 2013, 9:35 am

It'll truly be our cultural and ontological version of the 'gray goo' scenario and I don't know, especially when nanobots and drones the size of flies go out created and armed by super-intelligences built by super-intelligences built by super-intelligences, that there will be any place on earth that will be safe from such invasion.



Touretter
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 406

06 Mar 2013, 11:54 am

Here are my comments on this article. 1. The difference between a zygote, and a viable foetus is that the latter can survive, and function outside the womb. The question remains however, just when does viability begin. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml I also happen to think that infants have at least some cognitive function. Therefore they have a personal psyche. Therefore I do not think that it would be an appropiate for any people to have the authority to diminish the inherent indivisual value of some persons simply because they have some charecteristics that might make them less worthwhile to some people. This was what happened in such times, and places, as ancient Rome, under the pater familis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias#Children, and also in Nazi Germany, with regard to Aktion T4. So none of this is new. 2. I want to address this quotation, from the OP article.

Quote:
While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”


As I mentioned, the Nazis had a similar policy, concerning infants, and young children, deemed to have birth defects. And many, if not most, other European countries has banned Holocaust denial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#European_Union So why should these people be permitted to advocate in favour of legalising infanticide, for any reason? 3. This is my definition as to what life is, by definition. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY0P008dZZM[/youtube]



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

06 Mar 2013, 11:58 am

I think there's a grey area on the continuum.

It's perfectly acceptable to kill a 2 week old embryo.

It is not acceptable to kill a 12 year old child.

That's doesn't mean there is a point in between those two where suddenly it stops being acceptable to kill.

IMO a newborn baby human is "below" a newborn chimp, and certainly an adult chimp. If you have the choice to save an adult chimp or a newborn baby from a housefire, then assuming neither possessed particularly importance for you then you should save the chimp, which is more aware of its surroundings, capable of "higher thought" than the baby, and so forth.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Mar 2013, 12:25 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
I think there's a grey area on the continuum.

It's perfectly acceptable to kill a 2 week old embryo.

It is not acceptable to kill a 12 year old child.

That's doesn't mean there is a point in between those two where suddenly it stops being acceptable to kill.

I.


Yes. Sometime after birth

ruveyn