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/)

SultanOfSwing Feb 28th 2012 5:48 pm

Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by Uncle Ebenezer (Post 9925688)
Flippancy is the trademark of some of these "bioethicists". The idea that you should be able to kill a baby, on the grounds that it would be financially more desirable for the family?!! These people have no conscience, if an argument goes against their pure ethics or logic.

This one goes way beyond the pro-choice vs pro-life argument into an area we really shouldn't even be considering or debating at all.

Uncle Ebenezer Feb 28th 2012 5:56 pm

Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing (Post 9925706)
This one goes way beyond the pro-choice vs pro-life argument into an area we really shouldn't even be considering or debating at all.

There is a link in the article, to the online Journal of Medical Ethics, which precises the paper. So, it would seem it is factually correct. I wonder if the two authors are prepared for the backlash.

SultanOfSwing Feb 28th 2012 6:03 pm

Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by Uncle Ebenezer (Post 9925719)
There is a link in the article, to the online Journal of Medical Ethics, which precises the paper. So, it would seem it is factually correct. I wonder if the two authors are prepared for the backlash.

Probably not. If they're so detached from reality that they could even consider presenting the 'argument', I doubt they'd even consider that anyone could find it in the least bit distasteful :blink:

Uncle Ebenezer Feb 28th 2012 6:03 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 
I really wish the url had been from another source, so I see Leslie's problem with it, though I do believe it is factually correct. I had never actually heard of "The Blaze" before - having now read some of the comments on this article, made by its subscribers, all I can say is :scaredhair:.

SultanOfSwing Feb 28th 2012 6:18 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by Uncle Ebenezer (Post 9925733)
I really wish the url had been from another source, so I see Leslie's problem with it, though I do believe it is factually correct. I had never actually heard of "The Blaze" before - having now read some of the comments on this article, made by its subscribers, all I can say is :scaredhair:.

They are rather ... interesting, aren't they?

fatbrit Feb 28th 2012 7:00 pm

Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by Uncle Ebenezer (Post 9925539)
Why is it "crap"? Is it factually incorrect, or do you just not approve of the source?

I don't see why there's all the fuss. The problem with Beck is he jumps from an academic paper by ethicists discussing a very difficult issue.....to it all becoming the law enforced by federal officers in long black coats next week. Obviously that isn't going to happen!

A Beck viewer contemplating ethics must be like an ant trying to understand an episode of Dallas.

Uncle Ebenezer Feb 28th 2012 7:05 pm

Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by fatbrit (Post 9925861)
I don't see why there's all the fuss. The problem with Beck is he jumps from an academic paper by ethicists discussing a very difficult issue.....to it all becoming the law enforced by federal officers in long black coats next week. Obviously that isn't going to happen!

A Beck viewer contemplating ethics must be like an ant trying to understand an episode of Dallas.

Good grief. I was merely commenting on the fact that such a paper could be written, let alone published in a major medical journal.

I don't see it as being a "difficult issue", I see it as a heinous one.

Sally Redux Feb 28th 2012 7:07 pm

Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by Uncle Ebenezer (Post 9925872)
Good grief. I was merely commenting on the fact that such a paper could be written, let alone published in a major medical journal.

I don't see it as being a "difficult issue", I see it as a heinous one.

How does this square with you wanting to put a bullet in chavs?

fatbrit Feb 28th 2012 7:16 pm

Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by Uncle Ebenezer (Post 9925872)
I don't see it as being a "difficult issue", I see it as a heinous one.

If we're going to allow abortion, I don't see that we shouldn't investigate the consequences from an ethical point of view.

I find myself quite conflicted with my own anti/pro abortion issues and can argue it either way.

Leslie Feb 28th 2012 7:30 pm

Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by Uncle Ebenezer (Post 9925539)
Why is it "crap"? Is it factually incorrect, or do you just not approve of the source?

Because it's basically making a "news story" out of a tangential debate between two or more parties. Just because these people are talking about it doesn't mean that it will ever be applied to real life. People can intellectualize about whatever remote existential theories they like ... that doesn't make them real or even remotely probable.

Rags like this get a hold of this stuff and put it forward as something that somebody is actually trying to force onto you/us/we/them and everybody goes bonkers.

My outrage is reserved for things that are actually happening every day, like forced female circumcision in Africa and children being shot down in the streets of Syria, not some egghead's theory about something so far removed from reality that it shouldn't even matter except maybe to those who like to think and talk and write about such things.

Uncle Ebenezer Feb 28th 2012 7:32 pm

Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by Sally Redux (Post 9925875)
How does this square with you wanting to put a bullet in chavs?

I think you need to take a step back and see whether you can tell the difference between dark humour and dead serious consideration of the murder of a child.


Originally Posted by fatbrit (Post 9925899)
If we're going to allow abortion, I don't see that we shouldn't investigate the consequences from an ethical point of view.

I find myself quite conflicted with my own anti/pro abortion issues and can argue it either way.

You do realise that what they consider "abortion" is the killing of a full-term, baby and not a foetus, do you?

kimilseung Feb 28th 2012 7:35 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 
I only glanced at the article, but my assumption is that the authors are anti-abortion, and that it is a piece of rhetoric to extend pro-abortion arguments to babies and thus try to make an anti-abortion point. And that is why Beck like it.

"(The National Catholic) Register states that the argument made by the ethicists is almost pro-life in that it “highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument”"

fatbrit Feb 28th 2012 7:38 pm

Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by Uncle Ebenezer (Post 9925937)
You do realise that what they consider "abortion" is the killing of a full-term, baby and not a foetus, do you?

Yes. I assume they're not trying it out in a lab though but rather doing a thought experiment.

Leslie Feb 28th 2012 7:38 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by kimilseung (Post 9925944)
I only glanced at the article, but my assumption is that the authors are anti-abortion, and that it is a piece of rhetoric to extend pro-abortion arguments to babies and thus try to make an anti-abortion point.

Yes. That was my impression also. Infanticide. The sky is falling.

Uncle Ebenezer Feb 28th 2012 7:58 pm

Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by Leslie (Post 9925932)
Because it's basically making a "news story" out of a tangential debate between two or more parties. Just because these people are talking about it doesn't mean that it will ever be applied to real life. People can intellectualize about whatever remote existential theories they like ... that doesn't make them real or even remotely probable.

Rags like this get a hold of this stuff and put it forward as something that somebody is actually trying to force onto you/us/we/them and everybody goes bonkers.

My outrage is reserved for things that are actually happening every day, like forced female circumcision in Africa and children being shot down in the streets of Syria, not some egghead's theory about something so far removed from reality that it shouldn't even matter except maybe to those who like to think and talk and write about such things.

Well, unlike you, my outrage is not rationed. I wish I could be flippant about it, but many questionable and (IMO) immoral procedures began life as a paper in a scientific journal.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:20 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.