Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Post Reply New Topic

Wow.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html

This is a rather old article, slightly over a year old but I stumbled across this while I was trying to find something that Headline News was talking about where this was actually being done at a clinic.

I remembered South Park making a joke about Cartman's mom trying to abort him at 8 or 10, have to wonder if life isn't starting to imitate dark comedy.

Didn't Dawkins try to argue that it's fine to kill children (actually born ones) before they could have intellectual and personal features that make them "human"?

This doesn't seem much like a question of religion to me. A lot of different people appear genuinely empathetic to children about to be born.

I have no comment. Once that one "a" word is brought up, so does the other one.

While pre-birth abortion is one of those things that's really been locked in ideological stalemate between those of religious belief and those who see it as a failure of human resources vs. materialists and even malthusians, this really looks like a turn toward malthuseanism and possibly flirting with pushing the line out toward exterminism.

Really twisted stuff.

It's an interesting article, is this a serious proposal or a modest one? I don't disagree that abortion and infanticide are ethically different. I believe both are murder and I believe that murder is wrong. How does someone that is pro-abortion also be anti-infanticide?

Last edited by Jacoby on 04 Mar 2013, 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't see how an embryo or fetus is the same thing as a newborn baby....might as well say if you eat eggs you're killing baby chickens when you haven't killed anything something that had the potential to develop into a conscious being simply never makes it there. I would be opposed to late term abortions unless of course it is a medical emergency or something that necessitates it...but yeah abortion and killing a baby are not the same thing in my opinion.

I don't see the point either are these idiots just arguing that parents should be allowed to have their babies/children killed just to be idiots....or are they actually hoping that becomes common policy?

I mean I can sort of see there being a more fine line between a baby and a fetus......but a lot of people even argue even doing away with the embroyo via herbs/morning after pill that will cause a miscarrige or whatever is killing a person. Actually when I was in college some people came to the college to argue why birth control and abortion should be illegal as it was being voted on and I went and expressed my opposition.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 04 Mar 2013, 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Where and when did Richard Dawkins say or write that?

ruveyn

Okay, I found the article related to what I saw on the news today:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/h ... -1.1278649

Thankfully it looks like the work of a lone putz who'll be tried and convicted. It'll still be important however to see how the trial goes, hopefully it won't in any way endorse the ideas in the OP nor legal leniency on this 'doctor'.

There is probably not much difference between killing a late term fetus and a newborn baby. Infanticide has been practiced during times of hardship and when babies are undesirable for some reason.
It does seem cruel to think of killing a baby that is capable of living outside its mother. It's not something I would like to see in common practice. Although, I still think abortions early in a pregnancy are acceptable.

"Killing babies no different from abortion, religious fanatics say"

Fixed.

I'd hope this particular 'religion' that favors killing infants post-utero doesn't grow too much farther.

"Killing infants post-utero," is an abomination. Not because of its substance (which is, admittedly, abominable), but because it's grammatically wrong.

"Utero" is a place, not an event. You don't kill infants, "after uterus," you kill them, "after birth." The correct phrase is, "killing infants postpartum." Alternatively you could say, "ex utero" (out of the uterus).

As for these experts, they can take their opinion and stick it in the Bodleian, because there is no way in hell that any Western legal system is going to give effect to such a view.

That's part of why I think they need to make an example of this guy and set the precedent that ex utero infanticide will not even be looked at as a possibility. Late term abortion is bad enough, this stuff just shatters the pail. Its as much of a clear 'No' as legalizing active pedophilia.

if you're going to say that a foetus is no different to a baby, you may as well say a sperm or ovule is no different to an embryo.

Acording to their defenition of person, my mother, when she was ill and her health degrading fataly, she had no sense of loss of her life. She viewed it as a good thing, she only lacked the courage to do it because she didn't know what came after. Now, do they think that my mother had no right to life? That we, as their direct family had the right to kill her because it was dificult to live with her? That's as disgustiong as it can get. These kind of "experts" in medical ethics are vile scum.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kCyqBKewr4[/youtube]