British Expats

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   Take it Outside! (https://britishexpats.com/forum/take-outside-67/)
-   -   After birth 'abortions'??!! (https://britishexpats.com/forum/take-outside-67/after-birth-abortions-750005/)

paranoidandroid Mar 1st 2012 7:25 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by kimilseung (Post 9929948)
Do you mean, that for it to be capable of innocence it would also need to be capable of guilt? and a foetus is incapable of guilt.

As it hasn't existed outside the womb, I would say that's pretty well a given. Unless there's a law here that could charge a fetus with a crime?

Sally Redux Mar 1st 2012 9:12 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 
I think fatbrit is more pointing out the difference between our common belief that the taking of human life can be justified where that person is doing harm.

Some people would argue that it is wrong to take any life, even that of a fly for example.

Some are happy to kill cows, sheep and pigs but not dogs and cats (or giraffes, re: a recent thread).

From a purely moral standpoint, I would say abortion is 'wrong', but of course we live in the real world.

Uncle Ebenezer Mar 1st 2012 10:07 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 
Well, it looks like you've all been having fun in here, while I was away. :thumb:

SultanOfSwing Mar 1st 2012 10:23 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by Uncle Ebenezer (Post 9930294)
Well, it looks like you've all been having fun in here, while I was away. :thumb:

I've been enjoying this one. We've managed to keep it relatively civil over the course of the discussion - a rarity in these parts.

Uncle Ebenezer Mar 1st 2012 10:36 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing (Post 9930319)
I've been enjoying this one. We've managed to keep it relatively civil over the course of the discussion - a rarity in these parts.

Particularly given the sensitive nature of the subject.

N1cky Mar 1st 2012 10:44 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 
Late to the party, but to through my two penneth in.

IMO everyone should have the right to have an abortion, up to the point of the baby being a viable life.

I think its very easy for blokes to say, if you have a shag and get pregnant you should live with the consequences. When the unwanted 6 month old is bawling all night long and the bloke packs his bags and leaves, no-one bats an eyelid. If a Mum walks out on her baby its the worst thing in the world in most peoples eyes.

Abortion certainly shouldn't be used as a form of birth control, but should be an option for people who make a mistake. I'm also sure for lots of woman the decision stays with them for most of their lives, it's not something most reasonable people undertake lightly.

TheEmperorIsNaked Mar 1st 2012 11:26 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 
It is an interesting and civilised conversation. None of it changes my view. Abortion today is being used as birth control, and validating it as birth control doesn't alter my view.

I found the two Victorian bozo's. They are now facing death threats and are under polis protection.

What a World. Perhaps we can call that late onset abortion?

Geordie George Mar 2nd 2012 12:12 am

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by N1cky (Post 9930358)
IMO everyone should have the right to have an abortion, up to the point of the baby being a viable life.

That's something that's being bothering me as I've been reading this thread for the past couple of days. Abortion is legal up until 24 weeks, as far as I can gather, because medical advances have meant good survival chances for babies born after that point, but not before. But it's got me wondering about whether just because we can, does it mean we should? Babies born at 24 weeks gestation are exceptionally ill-prepared for life. What are their long-term health prospects in comparison to babies born at full-term? I expect that premature babies have higher levels of physical and/or mental disability, with all that brings (for both child and their family). I guess I've just been thinking about it as a quality of life issue, rather than as prolonging life for the sake of doing so. Although, who's qualified to judge that? And how much lower is the abortion limit going to get pressed with new advances in medicine?

Definitely a very grey area ... It's been thought-provoking reading. :)

Sally Redux Mar 2nd 2012 12:14 am

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by Geordie George (Post 9930535)
That's something that's being bothering me as I've been reading this thread for the past couple of days. Abortion is legal up until 24 weeks, as far as I can gather, because medical advances have meant good survival chances for babies born after that point, but not before. But it's got me wondering about whether just because we can, does it mean we should? Babies born at 24 weeks gestation are exceptionally ill-prepared for life. What are their long-term health prospects in comparison to babies born at full-term? I expect that premature babies have higher levels of physical and/or mental disability, with all that brings (for both child and their family). I guess I've just been thinking about it as a quality of life issue, rather than as prolonging life for the sake of doing so. Although, who's qualified to judge that? And how much lower is the abortion limit going to get pressed with new advances in medicine?

Definitely a very grey area ... It's been thought-provoking reading. :)

This is an area related to my husband's research.

From what he has told me, there are a lot of health problems associated with this group.

magikkell Mar 2nd 2012 5:12 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 
Hi everyone,
I've been trying to track some interesting conversations about this on the web, and I was wondering about some of the issues involved.

BTW, the full article is available here:
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201....full.pdf+html
It's only 4 pages, so it's a quick read.

The main point the authors are making is about personhood. The key paragraph of their argument is this:


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.
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’. 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. This means that many nonhuman
animals and mentally retarded human individuals are
persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition
of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons.
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing
someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered
subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on
embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is
permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.
I noticed that some here have given a different account of personhood, and that is the idea of being self-sustainable outside the womb. But that doesn't seem right. Children are not self sustainable, in a sense, until they can at least gather their own food somehow. Compare this to baby sea turtles who are self-sustainable from the time the egg is laid.
So, we seem to want to allow some help in sustaining life, such as being provided with food, shelter, and so forth. And right now with our medical knowledge we can get some 20-24 week babies to make it. But we generally do stick them in incubators and hook them up to some machines to help out. But that means the status of personhood is contingent on our medical technology. 100 years ago you were a person at, say, 30 weeks, and in another 100 years we may be able to incubate fertilized eggs entirely without a womb, so would you then become a person at the time of conception? Viability to live without a womb seems like a bad criterion for being a person.

But what other criteria do we have for someone being a person? (and I assume by being a person we mean someone who it is immoral to harm or kill)


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:48 am.

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.