Medical ethicist suggests killing disabled & unwanted ba

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, it is ridiculous. While I am pro-choice, I do think abortion needs to be decided very early on (before the baby is born). Once a baby is born, you cannot just kill the baby. Any reasonable people would agree with me on this.

I think this is why abortion is such a sticky issue. Why is terminating a fetus abortion while killing a newborn baby is murder? What is the exact science behind this claim? When exactly does life start and how do we define the beginning of life? These are very important questions to be considered that have not been adequately answered by science so far.

Medical Ethics, and the making of sausage, are subjects not for the faint of heart.

This is a simple question that brings out the debate.

In partial birth abortion, wait till the natural process reaches the Crowning stage, the top of the head in the birth canal, then open the head and suck out the brain. This has been legal.

Doctors who induce labor at six months produce a birth that is not supposed to live, but some do start breathing, and as a Doctor in Pennsylvania found, cutting the spinal cord to finish the process is called Murder.

Something about the magic of being born alive, which does not apply to those alive in the womb, or in the process of being born.

Some hold the Morning After Pill does the same, life ends.

If the answer is life, it is all the same, if the answer is viable life, few would survive before age three without outside support.

Many cultures had a naming ceramony at age five, before that they were called Maybe. As a species we have a high infant mortality, and overpopulation. The natural process was up to half died under five. As the Afgans say, if they live to five, nothing will kill them but a bullet.

Up to a hundred years ago this was the worldwide process, let them all be born, and let life see who is fit to survive.

Resistance to dying was the only standard. From Pasture's Vaccine for Small Pox, through Public Health, clean water, natures or gods natural check on culling the weak and keeping the population down failed.

This caused unintended results. The next generation, 1918, the young were subject to a Flu that killed 50,000,000 young, healthy, dead in twelve hours, yet the older were not affected. That was about 5% of world population.

The only thing sure is they are all going to die, When Social Security started they died at 64, and if they lived another year they could collect.

Now they live to 80, and half of all medical costs are expended in the last six months of life. The Japanese live to 90, so it will get worse. We are paying for people who never existed before. We are paying a lot.

Of the people saved from dying young, they reproduced and several generations later we have a lot of lifetime medical conditions that use up resources on a few.

We overthrew Nature, which had kept the species strong for a few million years, and replaced it with a profit making system that generates ever larger expenses.

Not long ago all resources were directed at five to forty, the growth and productive years, now they are under five and over sixty. The curve forward is twice the world's income will be spent there in a short time.

So eat well, exercize, take long walks, make friends with country people who farm.

What if I joined the Aryan Brotherhood nazi group, rose through the ranks to the top, then declared all the members inferior to myself and disbanded the group?

Actually, that's a little reminiscent of the death of George Rockwell, the father of the American Neo-Nazism. One of Rockwell's underlings was very outspoken about how blond Nazis (like himself) were superior to dark haired Nazis. A brunette, Rockwell was not too pleased at being told that he was less than someone else due to hair color, and so booted the guy out. Not long after, Rockwell was shot to death by this guy while on his way to do laundry. As a friend said, there's something funny about a Nazi getting killed with his dirty underwear.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Blond Aryans are superior to dark haired Aryans, but brunette chicks are hot!! ! Jewish, Puerto Rican or maybe some kind of Hispanic I don't care! Oh, wait, I guess I wouldn't make a very good racist Aryan...

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

So at what age does one become a 'real person'? 16? 18? 21? 100? If you're under a certain age of being a 'real person' does it make it right to kill everyone under that age? I found this article disturbing. The disabled are people too. Francesca Minerva, however, I wonder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortion

Infanticide is part of the reality of being an animal. Humans are not exempt.

Various methods of abortion, have become the alternative and accepted norm for the last several thousand years.

Crude methods of illegal abortion, dangerous to the mother, still comprise close to half of all abortions performed in the world, at about 20 million.

Before Agriculture, infanticide was a necessity for survival, when resources were short and filicide/cannabilism is evidenced as well. Take away subsistence, and humans will do whatever it takes to survive, just like most other animals.

Not much has changed except for the methods.

The numbers of abortions performed, both legal and unsafe, are highest in impoverished areas around the world; subsistence is still a major factor as it was in prehistory.

The modern practice of abortion, infanticide, and those rare cases of filicide/cannibilism, provides evidence of the general reality of human nature. Those who are proven viable are valued more than those whom are not.

In every country decisions have been made, where that point of viability is.

The philosopher/ethicist argument in the published article, sets a hypothetical point of viability, beyond the legal/cultural norm of modern societies.

A philosophical argument/hypothesis by an academic is no weapon for solid legal/cultural norms that spread the borders of most countries.

The only apparent danger is that different moral/ethical/legal viewpoints are a threat to a reasoned, yet controversial academic/philosophical discussion on a hypothetical placement of the point of viability along with an hypothesis of what it is that determines that viability.

Even more disturbing is that a life would be threatened, over a hypothesis that does not have a reasonable potential for reality. It's not much different than a threat against an abortion clinic, except that it is over words instead of actions.


The civilized world has developed more effective methods that hide this reality of human nature, common to the rest of the animal kingdom, at times, for survival.

Unsafe abortion and infanticide is a harsher reality than legal abortion and effective means of preventative contraception, for all those whom are concerned.

One could outlaw abortion, but one cannot change human nature, and the inevitibility that the unsafe version would still happen, along with a greater potential for infanticide.

The evidence is overwhelming to that effect, as presented in the links above.



The most effective method of reducing abortion is what some whom oppose abortion refuse to support. Education for family planning, availability of effective contraceptives, and accessible health care for all that includes coverage for those effective contraceptives.

The US is coming closer to reaching that destination. If one would like to see an eventual reduction in abortion, it appears the only effective political choice is that of Obama. Ironic, but it appears to be reality, per the facts as they currently exist.



And finally, a proper response to the philosopher/ethicist that offered the academic hypothesis, is a reasoned response that refutes it. There are ethical factors, and actual facts that go well beyond the limited ones that were presented in the paper.

It has already been successfully done countless times, in the past several thousand years, since the invention of abortion. It is part of why infanticide is illegal in most every country, world-wide.

This paper on ethics is not supporting eugenics, it is just pointing out that the better method would be to screen all babies, cull the lot, and pass the surplus off for adoption.

Current methods kill the healthy.

Infantcide was common worldwide, and only became illegal when Churches found they could not convert new members, so they had only Breeding to grow on. A second reason was governments who wanted them raised to eighteen, and sent to die in battle to extend the range of government.

In both cases the Church and Government claimed ownership.

While they have made many claims, from more Souls to die for thier God to manpower to support the Economy, those views lack scientific support.

In the here and now, church members do tithe, and governments tax, and money has no memory. Larger population, larger income, and a surplus of flesh to charge into battle.

Now the godless Chinese can improve their lot by having less children, expending more on their education, as it takes less and better educated to produce the retirement for the current population. One factory worker is worth more than a dozen subsistance farmers.

America went from seven workers to support one retired, down to three. At the same time education got political, and good jobs were sold abroad. So three fast food workers to support each retired.

India has a growing population, that lives on a few dollars a day from seasonal work, and sleeps in the streets. All bodies can be disposed of by throwing them in the river, no questions asked.

Nigeria has a growing population, and no streets. The whole country seems a shallow grave.

Birth Control and Abortion were not an Ethical Problem in America, it was a Political One. The result was 50-100,000,000 were not born, and the tax base has been dropping since the Pill. Child based employment, dropping, now one teacher to thirteen students, to keep teachers employed, at a high cost per student.

The main effect on the economy, ghosts do not buy houses. Economics are demand driven, houses cannot be exported, and most illegal aliens cannot buy. The lack of 25,000,000 new households crashed the market.

They would have bought houses about 1990-2000, and now be in their peak earning, taxpaying, years. Their children would be filling the schools, and demanding better education. More people would be concerned about the future.

The bulk of the population is War Babies about to retire, and post war to the Pill soon to follow. That leaves the Baby Bust Generation to pay for it all for fifty years, with the largest block of voters being retired.

The Government view is they will bring in immigrants to replace the population, and fund their own retirement.

In Japan, which does not accept immigrants, the current workforce is twice the retired, and in fifty years, the population will decline by a third. At two workers per retired, taxes are high, they have few children, so the situation will continue into the future.

Europe was first in population decline, paid child support just to get people to have children. Immigrants do not assimilate, they colonize.

Our laws and social views are not truths, they reflect our history and culture. They might seem to work for us, but to Police Mexicans, you need Mexican Police. For them it is a win to colonize our prisons. Free food, clothing, medical care, meeting the larger economic network, and when released, a free trip home to visit, before returning.

Islamic and East Asians also form colonies, the view of these old cultures was summed up by an Indian I asked what he thought of American Culture, "I will tell you if I see any," was his reply.

The hundred year plan of our own government is we will be birth controlled, aborted, and drugged out of existance, and replaced by people who will pay bribes to come here.

Those who hold title to the economy and government would like to get rid of those who hold the Vote.

People should be writing to Oxford, demanding that they sever any funding or associations with this "woman".

Canada is following suit, so are many other EU Nations are, and Republicans in both Conservertive and Tea Party Groups are also taking note to use this, just to note to remove Birth Control as a backhand issue, Santorum is the King of the Crop for something like this, maybe even cutting back healthcare to use the money to bring back Mental Aslyums and have anyone with Special Needs to be stripped of their freedom and have them be put under torture treatment until Lobotomy if uncontroled, welcome to the Midevil Times again if WW3 begins.

On an off topic subject of that, that would usualy happen if the Government was being put back in control of the Japanese Emperor, and because of what has happened to the country that could lead to the demise of it's population in 100 years, it seems that they could allow specific immigrants if the first 2 or 3 things have been learned in the following,

Language,
Culture,(must wear something that relates to it's Non-Japanese style in clothing terms)
History,
Religion,(mainly Shinto or Japanese Buddhism)
Note: Washington State and Hawaii are 2 states that would be given some privilages depending on status...
Assisting in Humanitarian Support,
and Business,

These are the things that would matter in terms of accepting Immigrants now, and given their issues they had gone through 1 year and 2 days ago reguarding the Earthquake and Tsunami incendent, and thus that is where the population might decline within 100 years.

These questions cannot be answered by science. Science can already tell you just about everything you might need to know about what happens from conception to birth. This information just isn't the sort of thing that helps you to make moral judgments.

From a scientific perspective, life is an ongoing process. Science has nothing to say about when a particular individual "becomes alive". That's a human perspective, and doesn't make sense from a scientific point of view.

The only way that science could help with the issue of abortion is if you make the following assumptions:
(1.) The wrongness of killing a person is directly proportional to the vividness of the person's subjective experience.
(2.) The vividness of a person's subjective experience is directly proportional to how "powerful" the person's brain is.

If you make these two assumptions, and you find out that a foetus has a "less powerful" brain then a baby, then maybe there's something that science can say about the ethics of abortion. But it's not at all clear how to make the second assumption precise, and the two assumptions together would allow us to not feel bad about killing mentally disabled people, which you all seem to think is horrible.

I disagree with that woman's values and beliefs. I feel that every life is precious and that every human life should be protected from conception until natural death. Everybody deserves a birthday.

I'm behind you on that statement.

What is up with all this sicko "ethicists" coming out lately? 'And people wonder why academics get a bad rap.