Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34
  1. #11  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Exactly. Self impressed pseudo intellectual British types proving that the Earth really is flat.
    Wow Wei and nova, we have the start of a think tank here. Tank may be overstating it, maybe a think drip.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member namvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Western Mo
    Posts
    3,012
    the article is from the UK. they kill everything over there. well whatever
    Liberals: Obama's useful Idiots
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Politically tired. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,635
    This is some scary crap. This is one of the slippery slopes I've been concerned about lately regarding abortion. It's becoming increasingly obvious that some do not know where to draw the line. People need to realize that life is precious despite having handicaps and despite the situation of their parents. FWIW, most pro-choicers would not be on board with this ridiculous thinking. I was speaking to a choicer the other day about my concerns about abortion and he said no way would it ever turn into this. Well, he's wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    What get's me is that most liberals are against the death penalty. Well, isn't that post birth abortion?
    Liberal compassion is reserved for those who don't warrant it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    The argument is flawed. I wonder if it was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek jab from anti-abortion advocates.

    Let's consider this. The argument supposes that abortion is acceptable because a fetus does not meet the criteria of Personhood which grant it the same human rights as everyone else. The qualities that distinguish a Person from any other living creature are generally considered the ability to communicate, a sense of self, consciousness, self-motivation, and the ability to reason. Because a newborn baby also does not meet these criteria, they conclude that it is just as morally acceptable to kill a newborn as it is to abort a fetus.

    However, that misinterprets that argument for abortion. Even if we can agree that a fetus is not a Person in the full moral sense of the word, that doesn't mean that we have free reign to kill them for any reason. For example, it would be unethical to kill a dog purely for the sake of killing it, even though the dog isn't a person, we consider the dog to have some right to life. Of course, when a non-person animal's right to life conflicts with the right to life of a full-fledged Person, we always side with the person. The argument for abortion only works because there is an immediate conflict between the rights of the Fetus and the rights of the Mother. If we cannot consider the fetus a Person, we may still be able to consider it a pre-Person, or potential-Person, which certainly has some moral value. However, in the case of a conflict of rights between a pre-Person and a Person, it is the rights of a Person which supercede.

    After a baby is born, there is no longer a conflict of rights. The mother is no longer having her body involuntarily occupied by the baby. At that point, we may still consider the newborn baby to not entirely posses the full qualities of personhood, but that status as a not-entirely-full-Person doesn't grant Persons the right to kill them at will.
    The mother was never having her body involuntarily occupied, unless the pregnancy was the result of a rape. Sex has consequences, and an adult is presumed to understand the consequences enough to be responsible for dealing with them. The primary consequence of sex is pregnancy. We can try to avoid it, we can use barriers, chemistry or timing or any combination thereof, but sex designed, first and foremost, as a procreative act. Sexual pleasure is a means to encourage this. Pretending that physical gratification is the sole goal of sex inverts what is truly important.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    The abstract on their page is chilling:

    Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
    http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201...11-100411.full
    March 5, 2012 Article Advocating 'After-Birth Abortion' Mugs Liberals with Reality

    By Bookworm

    Conservatives were horrified when the Journal of Medical Ethics published an article advocating "after-birth abortion" for handicapped, or just inconvenient, babies. They are correct that it is a disgusting piece of amoral analysis, but that is its virtue. As much as conservatives hate it, progressives hate it more. Many are convinced that it's a plant by the pro-life crowd. What progressives cannot articulate, but intuitively understand, is that by applying a reductio ad absurdum approach to the notion of abortion, the article forces pro-abortion people to confront the Big Lie that underpins their willingness to terminate a pregnancy, even an advanced one.
    Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini have advanced a very simple proposition, which is that only "a person" deserves to live:
    The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.
    [snip]
    Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a 'person' in the sense of 'subject of a moral right to life.'
    In the authors' lexicon, to be a "person" deserving of life, one has to have a cognitive sense of self, akin to Descartes' proposition that "I think, therefore I am":
    We take 'person' to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.
    Because babies lack a higher existential sense, they have no greater right to life than other biological entities without an existential sense of self -- say, for example, a cockroach or chicken. Downgrading a baby's status from "person" to something equivalent to a cockroach leads to the next step in the analysis, which is that adults have the absolute right to terminate this living, breathing non-person's existence:
    [W]hat we call 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
    We've been down this path before. It ended in Auschwitz.
    For the pro-abortion crowd, the problem with the article's analysis is that it reveals the amoral, illogical, unscientific approach justifying the current no-holds-barred approach to abortion. The article says a baby is not a person, but only a potential person. The pro-abortionist says the fetus is not a baby, but only potential baby. "It" (with "It" being the proto-person) begins as a zygote, then becomes a thing indistinguishable from a similarly situated chicken or a dog thing, and then slowly develops into a potential human. While in the womb, It does not breath or eat, nor does It think or have an awareness of itself or of others. It is a simulacrum of a person; It looks like a baby but lacks minimum human attributes. Being un-human, It therefore has no right to life.
    Many pro-abortion folks are uncomfortably aware, at least at a subliminal level, that this is a Big Lie. With modern medicine, fetuses that have passed the 24-week stage can become part of the breathing, eating, communicating, aware, thinking world, simply by being born. More importantly, biological reality is that all fetuses, from conception onward, are nascent persons. Just as life outside the womb is a continuum from cradle to grave, with the soft, fuzzy baby becoming the desiccated centenarian, so too is there a continuum within the womb, as the zygote transitions into a fully fledged -- and viable -- infant.
    The after-birth abortion article, by applying to a viable infant the same logic that the pro-abortion crowd applies to a fetus, explodes the magical thinking that allows people to pretend that the continuum of life begins at birth, not at conception. The article's authors are exactly right when they analyze an infant: the baby doesn't have existential awareness, no more than next week's dinner does. Just as the cow whose flank will one day make a nice stew doesn't stand around in the pasture thinking, "Yes, the grass is sweet and the air fresh, but tomorrow I die," neither does the infant think, "I really like this lady who's holding me in her arms and filling my tummy. I just hope she doesn't suddenly decide to kill me."
    Both cow and infant live in a world of feeling. The difference is that the infant, unlike the cow, will eventually develop a greater awareness, one that includes recognizing its mortality. Because this existential awareness develops long after infancy passes, the article's ineluctable logic allows a mother to kill her four-year-old because he's too expensive or just because she dislikes the way motherhood suddenly has her shopping at Costco.
    Most pro-abortion people are not horrible human beings. Instead, they have been conditioned to believe that "a woman's right to choose" is a moral end in itself, and one that trumps all other considerations. To sustain this belief system, they must buy into the little deceptions that feed the Big Lie about a fetus's lack of humanity. None of these people, however, can pretend that a living, breathing baby, even one with a birth defect, is not a human. Reading an article that advocates a living child's death horrifies them. The further realization that the article repeats the same tropes that underlie their pro-abortion views is a sledgehammer shattering the cognitive dissonance behind which they hide.
    Despite the ugliness of this post-birth abortion article, many pro-abortion people will continue down their current path. They'll castigate the article for being evil, either on its own terms or as a malevolent pro-life plant, but they'll still say that women must have the right to terminate a pregnancy if they know that they (or society) cannot manage the costs or inconvenience an infant will cause. If challenged, they'll have left only non sequiturs about "the right to choose" and "government off my uterus."
    What makes the article valuable is that other people, more thoughtful people, people who have been affected by seeing sonograms of their own baby or their little niece or nephew, will find unsustainable the cognitive dissonance that the article creates. They will no longer be able to pretend that the fetus isn't deserving of life because it doesn't have an existential sense. They will understand that, if one accepts the article's logic, one has opened an easy pathway to killing any people who arguably lack self-awareness. It's a death knell for those with head injuries, advanced brain tumors, serious stroke deficits, Alzheimer's, etc. The next step is to look at an entire group of people and conclude that, by virtue of race, color, religion, sexual orientation, etc., that group lacks personhood and doesn't deserve to live either.
    Whether Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini are the genuine moral monsters they appear to be or are skillful counter-propagandists, they have done the world a valuable service by focusing on the reality behind abortion's culture of death. It's not about "a woman's right to choose." It is, as they explicitly state, about whether a human deserves to live.
    Bookworm is the proprietor of the website Bookworm Room.


    Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...h_reality.html at March 05, 2012 - 09:05:04 AM CST
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    This is some scary crap. This is one of the slippery slopes I've been concerned about lately regarding abortion. It's becoming increasingly obvious that some do not know where to draw the line. People need to realize that life is precious despite having handicaps and despite the situation of their parents. FWIW, most pro-choicers would not be on board with this ridiculous thinking. I was speaking to a choicer the other day about my concerns about abortion and he said no way would it ever turn into this. Well, he's wrong.
    Liberals don't believe in slippery slopes, what happened to you?

    As for your choice of words, why is a pro-baby murder called "pro-choice" but a Pro-life person is a narrow minded hater?
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    The argument is flawed. I wonder if it was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek jab from anti-abortion advocates.

    Let's consider this. The argument supposes that abortion is acceptable because a fetus does not meet the criteria of Personhood which grant it the same human rights as everyone else. The qualities that distinguish a Person from any other living creature are generally considered the ability to communicate, a sense of self, consciousness, self-motivation, and the ability to reason. Because a newborn baby also does not meet these criteria, they conclude that it is just as morally acceptable to kill a newborn as it is to abort a fetus.

    However, that misinterprets that argument for abortion. Even if we can agree that a fetus is not a Person in the full moral sense of the word, that doesn't mean that we have free reign to kill them for any reason. For example, it would be unethical to kill a dog purely for the sake of killing it, even though the dog isn't a person, we consider the dog to have some right to life. Of course, when a non-person animal's right to life conflicts with the right to life of a full-fledged Person, we always side with the person. The argument for abortion only works because there is an immediate conflict between the rights of the Fetus and the rights of the Mother. If we cannot consider the fetus a Person, we may still be able to consider it a pre-Person, or potential-Person, which certainly has some moral value. However, in the case of a conflict of rights between a pre-Person and a Person, it is the rights of a Person which supercede.

    After a baby is born, there is no longer a conflict of rights. The mother is no longer having her body involuntarily occupied by the baby. At that point, we may still consider the newborn baby to not entirely posses the full qualities of personhood, but that status as a not-entirely-full-Person doesn't grant Persons the right to kill them at will.
    Who speaks for the child wee? What are the rights of the baby? It didn't ask to be conceived. Why is it liberals will line up 30 deep outside of a prison while Tookie Williams is being executed in hopes that his life will be spared but they will also line up 30 deep to ensure a woman has the right to execute her baby for no other reason than convenience? Can you answer me that?
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Who speaks for the child wee? What are the rights of the baby? It didn't ask to be conceived. Why is it liberals will line up 30 deep outside of a prison while Tookie Williams is being executed in hopes that his life will be spared but they will also line up 30 deep to ensure a woman has the right to execute her baby for no other reason than convenience? Can you answer me that?
    In leftist eyes, a baby isn't a person until ACORN has registered it to vote.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member Eupher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mizz-uhr-ah
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    The argument is flawed. I wonder if it was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek jab from anti-abortion advocates.

    Let's consider this. The argument supposes that abortion is acceptable because a fetus does not meet the criteria of Personhood which grant it the same human rights as everyone else. The qualities that distinguish a Person from any other living creature are generally considered the ability to communicate, a sense of self, consciousness, self-motivation, and the ability to reason. Because a newborn baby also does not meet these criteria, they conclude that it is just as morally acceptable to kill a newborn as it is to abort a fetus.

    However, that misinterprets that argument for abortion. Even if we can agree that a fetus is not a Person in the full moral sense of the word, that doesn't mean that we have free reign to kill them for any reason. For example, it would be unethical to kill a dog purely for the sake of killing it, even though the dog isn't a person, we consider the dog to have some right to life. Of course, when a non-person animal's right to life conflicts with the right to life of a full-fledged Person, we always side with the person. The argument for abortion only works because there is an immediate conflict between the rights of the Fetus and the rights of the Mother. If we cannot consider the fetus a Person, we may still be able to consider it a pre-Person, or potential-Person, which certainly has some moral value. However, in the case of a conflict of rights between a pre-Person and a Person, it is the rights of a Person which supercede.

    After a baby is born, there is no longer a conflict of rights. The mother is no longer having her body involuntarily occupied by the baby. At that point, we may still consider the newborn baby to not entirely posses the full qualities of personhood, but that status as a not-entirely-full-Person doesn't grant Persons the right to kill them at will.
    Let's consider THIS, instead:

    The ridiculousness of your analysis cannot be overstated.

    How does humankind acknowledge and accommodate the lengthy maturation cycle of human beings? Why and how should a human being have a defined sense of self at minutes after birth when it takes up to age 25 for most males to physically and mentally mature?

    No matter how you slice it, murdering a newborn is murder.
    U.S. Army, Retired
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    6,287
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Wow Wei and nova, we have the start of a think tank here. Tank may be overstating it, maybe a think drip.
    With those two a Think Petri Dish would be the most appropriate thing for them....shallow and full of filth.
    Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •