Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 94
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's pretty clear that one cannot morally be against killing a new-born baby and be for killing a late-term fetus that is about to be born.

    But late-term allowances for abortion are generally only if:
    1. The life of the mother is in danger
    2. The fetus is not viable.

    And these don't really apply to a decision to kill a born baby. A born baby cannot be a threat to the life of the mother and if it's not viable, then it has died already or will die very soon and therefore there is no decision to be made on whether to kill it or not.

    So being for allowing late-term abortions as they generally are allowed does not really come in any realistic moral conflict about how born babies should be treated.
    This term "health" has been defined by the Supreme Court as meaning "all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient" ( Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade). In effect, it means any reason whatsoever, if the woman and the abortionist consider it relevant to her emotional or psychological or family health.

    With regards to late term abortion up to the moment of birth or thereafter due to the health of the mother, this could easily mean if Jane and Frank Doe were expecting a child and wanted the child, but two days before her due date, Frank got in a terrible car accident and died. Jane breaks down mentally and emotionally and tells her doctor she doesn’t want this child any longer and wants to abort a fully viable baby because she cannot emotionally deal with being a mother without Frank – that viable child that was wanted for nine months would be killed because of the emotional health of the mother who does not want to consider adoption.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  2. #22
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,701
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...walsh/1644839/


    The assertion that the allowance is for the health of the mother, is not consistent with the implementation of the policy.

    While this is a fairly valid distinction to be made. It seems to be more of a smoke screen. Where a woman has the intent to kill her unborn, and then a dr Ad hoc's his way into some vague implication that the mothers life is at risk. No similar reasoning exists when dealing with the already born. It would be like a mother killing her new born and telling the judge "it was coming right for me!, and I feared for my life".


    The funny thing about "threat to the health of the mother" that reasoning is applied not only to the physical body of the mother, but also to the mental state of the mother.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion...fdefence.shtml

    Because the driving force for "medical" reasoning is to end the life of the child, that is at conflict with a born child where the same forces are at play.
    As far as I can tell, you are referring to abortion in general and not specifically late-term abortion and therefore your comments are not particularly relevant to the issue of having a late-term abortion to save the life of the mother.

    I am under the impression that when a woman has a late-term abortion for health reasons it is indeed a serious health situation. If you are positing otherwise, please support.

    But either way, if a woman is aborting a viable fetus due to something that is not actually a serious health concern and it's just a ploy to have an unnecessary late-term abortion, I would be against that and therefore abiding by a consistent moral position (which is what this thread is about).

    So whatever the practice actually is, I am saying that I am against late term abortion except in circumstance of the fetus not being viable or there being a significant risk to the health of the mother. And these two exceptions don't really correspond to newborns (since newborns are viable if they are alive and there's no realistic way they could be a threat to the life of the mother).



    ---------- Post added at 07:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    With regards to late term abortion up to the moment of birth or thereafter due to the health of the mother, this could easily mean if Jane and Frank Doe were expecting a child and wanted the child, but two days before her due date, Frank got in a terrible car accident and died. Jane breaks down mentally and emotionally and tells her doctor she doesn’t want this child any longer and wants to abort a fully viable baby because she cannot emotionally deal with being a mother without Frank – that viable child that was wanted for nine months would be killed because of the emotional health of the mother who does not want to consider adoption.
    I doubt that's true. I figure that the risk to the mother has to significant before the doctor will decide to do a late-term abortion. If you are saying that they will perform late-term abortions for relatively minor health issues, you will need to support that before I will factor that in.

  3. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    As far as I can tell, you are referring to abortion in general and not specifically late-term abortion and therefore your comments are not particularly relevant to the issue of having a late-term abortion to save the life of the mother.
    I was under the impression that late term abortion was not legal in most states.
    That the passage of late term abortion bills that allow abortion up to birth are the prompting of the thread.
    So, all we have is current abortion numbers, and it seems reasonable to project that out onto an expanded abortion window.
    As the arguments offered here are not new (IE health of mother). For that reason the numbers are relevant to this thread, as it speaks to the motivation of those having the abortions.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    I am under the impression that when a woman has a late-term abortion for health reasons it is indeed a serious health situation. If you are positing otherwise, please support.
    I offered support by showing that the "mental" health is equally considered.
    As it is the position of those afirming the womans health as a reason, it is the burden of those who want to make that disitinction to show that it is relevant such as to KILL the unborn.
    See the distinction pointed out in the last post.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    But either way, if a woman is aborting a viable fetus due to something that is not actually a serious health concern and it's just a ploy to have an unnecessary late-term abortion, I would be against that and therefore abiding by a consistent moral position (which is what this thread is about).
    So whatever the practice actually is, I am saying that I am against late term abortion except in circumstance of the fetus not being viable or there being a significant risk to the health of the mother.
    I am in agremeent with this.
    To serve man.

  4. #24
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not a problem, I'm a little slow so I appreciate it when you take it slow.

    Yes, the why is it immoral is important.
    So when you ask "is it a form of murder" it seems to beg the question as to "why is murder immoral". Which we would agree (I think) because it violates your rights.

    So basically there are two routs.

    1) Rights are something you earn, or are given.
    2) Rights are something that are inherent to you. (inalienable if you will)

    So when it comes to the unborn, it becomes about their rights, and #1 and #2 come into play.

    As some argued, one must be born to be a citizen and thus have rights. Which is a form of #1.

    I'm sure you know that I am in the camp of #2.

    So, long story short. the reason it is immoral to kill an infant is because it violates their rights. The unborn are not different in any way relevant to the nature of those rights. Thus it is immoral to kill an unborn in the same way it is immoral to kill the new born.
    I'm actually more of a #2 than you might think (I just don't think that morality has to be supernaturally transcendent to be sufficiently transcendent ). I don't think I would center the moral value of a thing on "rights", however. I tend to think of these things in terms of "harm" or "help". But then violating a person's rights can be regarded as a kind of harm, so it's probably not an important difference for our purposes here.

    So, is it fair to call infanticide "murder"? If so, is it the case that murder is always immoral (bearing in mind that I agree that, say, killing in self-defense is not immoral)?

    ---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So whatever the practice actually is, I am saying that I am against late term abortion except in circumstance of the fetus not being viable or there being a significant risk to the health of the mother. And these two exceptions don't really correspond to newborns (since newborns are viable if they are alive and there's no realistic way they could be a threat to the life of the mother).

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am in agremeent with this.
    Actually MT, we can probably wrap up our discussion right here as I am in agreement with you and Mican at this point.

  5. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  6. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus
    Actually MT, we can probably wrap up our discussion right here as I am in agreement with you and Mican at this point.
    Well then what do we do now? .. talk sports?

    Did you catch that boring SB? I was boycotting due to my Saints losing to the refs in the Division Championship round.
    Trying to start a movement, wanted to print some shirts that said
    "May the refs be ever in your favor". With a kind of hunger games / ref theme.
    Basically playing off the idea that ultimately too many games are decided by how the refs call the game, rather than the better team.

    .. and that is why the unborn deserve rights.

    ... never mind I retract that point as it doesn't follow logically. See what happens when we start agreeing!
    To serve man.

  7. Likes Dionysus liked this post
  8. #26
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,701
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I was under the impression that late term abortion was not legal in most states.
    That the passage of late term abortion bills that allow abortion up to birth are the prompting of the thread.
    But the thread is specifically about late-term abortions.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, all we have is current abortion numbers, and it seems reasonable to project that out onto an expanded abortion window.
    As the arguments offered here are not new (IE health of mother). For that reason the numbers are relevant to this thread, as it speaks to the motivation of those having the abortions.
    But the motivations of those having abortions is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.

    We are discussing the very limited exceptions that allow a fetus to be aborted late in the pregnancy and the motivation of the mother in wanting the abortion is irrelevant to what is allowed.

    Again, where late-term abortion is allowed, the reasons are
    1. Due to a serious health risk for the mother
    2. The fetus is not viable.

    If the mother has a motivation to have an abortion that is neither of those two things, then she is still not allowed to have a late-term abortion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I offered support by showing that the "mental" health is equally considered.
    I've seen no support that late-term abortions are allowed due to a mental health risk of the mother.

    Just positing that because an early-trimester abortion allows such reasoning is not support that late-term abortion allows it as well.

    ---------------

    But I have to say that your argument seems quite irrelevant to the issue at hand. What the law actually is or what it allows is not really a factor here.

    The issue is the moral consistency of those who are against infanticide but for allowing late-term abortion so the only issue regarding my argument is whether there is some inconsistency in my position. So forget the actual laws. It's MY position that late-term abortion should be allowed if there is a serious health risk to the mother or if the fetus is not viable. If my position is not inconsistent, then this issue is settled and it has been shown that there is no inconsistency.

    And if there is an inconsistency in my moral position, it is up to whoever cares to challenge me on this to point out the inconsistency.

  9. #27
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I doubt that's true. I figure that the risk to the mother has to significant before the doctor will decide to do a late-term abortion. If you are saying that they will perform late-term abortions for relatively minor health issues, you will need to support that before I will factor that in.
    Does the R.H.A. allow abortion up to the point of birth?
    The new law allows abortion under any of three conditions: (1) if it is performed earlier than 24 weeks of pregnancy; (2) in an “absence of fetal viability”; or (3) if necessary to “protect the patient’s life or health.”

    So abortion is allowed without any restrictions during the first and second trimesters. Later than that, the question is how fetal viability and protection of the life and health of the mother are determined. The R.H.A. says that those judgments are to be made according to “the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case”; it does not impose any objective medical standard.

    .....Insofar as the goal of the law was to guarantee access to abortion and remove restrictions on it, this is part and parcel of that goal. The new law does not contain any meaningful restriction that is likely to ever prevent an abortion.
    https://www.americamagazine.org/rha2019

    As far as the health and life of the mother....

    According to research published by the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights, abortions for fetal abnormalities “make up a small minority” of late-term abortions; those for saving the mother’s life are an even smaller number. The majority of late-term abortions aren’t done for so-called “medical reasons” at all.

    But the debate over “medical reasons” misses the point entirely. There is no medical justification for any abortion, period. If there are serious complications with a pregnancy, such that the life of the mother or her child are at risk, a doctor can either induce labor or perform a C-section, without deliberately killing the child. And a baby with disabilities or health problems deserves to be loved and cared for, not killed.

    As New York OB/GYN Omar Hamada noted on Twitter recently, “There’s not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third-trimester abortion. Not one. Delivery, yes. Abortion, no.”

    Likewise, OB/GYN Anthony Levatino, a reformed abortionist, recently testified before a subcommittee of the US House of Representatives: “During my time at Albany Medical Center, I managed hundreds of such cases by ‘terminating’ pregnancies [via live delivery by C-section] to save mothers’ lives. In all those hundreds of cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.”

    Every third-trimester abortion involves inducing labor anyway — so why not just allow the baby to be born alive, instead of killing her in the hours before her delivery?
    https://nypost.com/2019/01/31/the-ab...s-infanticide/
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  10. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,701
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    As far as the health and life of the mother....
    Since your post was just text and links, I'll rebut in a similar fashion.

    "Abortions procured in the third-trimester generally involve situations where the mother's life or health is in jeopardy, the fetus will die outside of the womb anyway, or the fetus is found to have a severe genetic abnormality that wasn't previously apparent."

    https://reason.com/blog/2016/10/21/l...n-america-2016

    And as I told MT, what the law actually is is kind of irrelevant to the issue anyway.

    The issue is whether one is morally consistent in being for allowing late-term abortions in the case of the health of the mother is in jeopardy and being against infanticide. I've never stated that I agree with any state's particular law but just that I agree with allowing late-term abortion in the case of health of the mother is at risk or if the fetus is not viable. To discuss other abortion issues is kind of a red herring.

  11. #29
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    But the thread is specifically about late-term abortions.
    Right, and my point was that the data we have about abortions is inherently going to not be specifically about that.
    But that data is not useless, especially when we see how the exceptions have been used in the past.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    But the motivations of those having abortions is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.
    Not when the thread is about peoples consistency.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    We are discussing the very limited exceptions that allow a fetus to be aborted late in the pregnancy and the motivation of the mother in wanting the abortion is irrelevant to what is allowed.

    Again, where late-term abortion is allowed, the reasons are
    1. Due to a serious health risk for the mother
    2. The fetus is not viable.

    If the mother has a motivation to have an abortion that is neither of those two things, then she is still not allowed to have a late-term abortion.
    Well, when you say not allowed,you can't be refering to the law as the law does in fact allow it, and you say the law is irrelevant.
    So, I think what you mean is that if it isn't for those two things, then it isn't consistent.

    Also think that "viable" ends up being a grey area, maybe more so then survival of the mother.
    Both those are not black and white concepts. As they say, pregnancy is not without inherent risks.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    I've seen no support that late-term abortions are allowed due to a mental health risk of the mother.
    I quoted it in the last post.
    Physcial and mental health of the mother was sited as justification for abortions.
    You would have some burden to show that there is a change in the laws in relation to late term.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    Just positing that because an early-trimester abortion allows such reasoning is not support that late-term abortion allows it as well.
    Without some limiting language.. abortion is abortion.
    you would have to show some limiting language to justify your objection.

    We can discuss if the laws regarding it are consistent as well, not just our views that have not relevancy to how things play out in the real world and our society around us.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    But I have to say that your argument seems quite irrelevant to the issue at hand. What the law actually is or what it allows is not really a factor here.

    The issue is the moral consistency of those who are against infanticide but for allowing late-term abortion so the only issue regarding my argument is whether there is some inconsistency in my position. So forget the actual laws. It's MY position that late-term abortion should be allowed if there is a serious health risk to the mother or if the fetus is not viable. If my position is not inconsistent, then this issue is settled and it has been shown that there is no inconsistency.

    And if there is an inconsistency in my moral position, it is up to whoever cares to challenge me on this to point out the inconsistency.
    This is a little aggravating.. what did I say in my last post? .. at like the end. in regards to this issue?
    To serve man.

  12. #30
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, that isn't quite true. All that needs to be done is deny the mother the ability to harm herself or the unborn. Then it would be born fairly naturally without any gov intervention.
    Also, it is pretty common for us to restrain people who are a threat to others. It is kinda the gov only job to protect people (citizens or no) from threat of harm to others.
    So you are talking about imprisoning women in their third trimester to ensure they do no harm to their child? How would then not be government intervention?

    further, there is a pretty clear line of consent. The mother has already entered an unspoken contract with the unborn by consenting to activities that lead to the creation of the unborn.
    Perhaps on planet MT, but not here on earth.

    Which leaves a very slim minority of cases where it is both an instance of rape, and an instance of immanent threat to personal life (not mental state). It would be interesting to see how many of the 2percent of abortions done due to threat of life of mother.. are also due to rape.
    Restrictions on later term abortions are common and justified. But the are restrictions, not prohibitions because there are circumstances that justify such abortions. This is in some contrast to laws for children who are born. So... there are moral differences, which is my argument.

    ---------- Post added at 04:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Who is talking about making the child a ward of the state? You're creating a straw man argument, Sig.
    No, I am using that example because it is something you can do with a born child, but you cannot do with a child in euro. You asked what the moral difference between the two was. You can and they do take children from their mothers, and they can't and don't take fetuses from their mothers.

    If those people come argue that tradition, I will respond and point out that appeals to tradition are argumentative fallacies.
    Morality is not largely driven by logic. It is driven by emotion and empathy. The means to achieve moral ends require logical thinking, but the core moral precepts are a starting premise and thus not subject to logical fallacies.

    I'm sorry, what changes the moral calculus against the chilid? You didn't exactly say how a mother's life is in danger with a late term baby. Can you give me examples in which an abortion at 8.5 months is necessary instead of having a C-section delivery?
    They usually happen before that. Most often the reason is that the mother is diagnosed with a heart condition where in carrying the child to term represents a significant risk of death for the mother. It s not made at the last minute, but it may not be detected until late in the pregnancy because the strain the fetus places on the mother grows over time as the fetus grows. There are also auto immune conditions and others that can come up but heart disease is the most common for the health of the mother.

    The most common cause of late abortions is the condition of the child which is malformed such that it is not expected to survive and the earlier you terminate the safer it is for the mother and the more humane it is.

    In some cases it is actually all the barriers put up to discourage abortion that causes the abortion to be delayed until it is later in the pregnancy.

    I don't think you've offered anything that supports the idea that a child has less moral value four minutes before birth than four days after. Or even four weeks in either direction.
    That is because that was not my argument. My argument was that the moral condition of the mother complicates the moral choices we make about the child. This is not true after the child is born, we need only consider his moral condition at that point. (or at least more so)
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  13. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,701
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    MT,

    I took your statements as a challenge to my argument but it appears that that is an incorrect assessment on my part. I am willing to change the subject but before we move on, I do want to be clear that my argument is not being challenged by you. I acknowledge that you have appeared to have said as much but assuming that is the case, I'm not sure what the point of your statements are if they aren't there to challenge my argument.

    So first off -

    To get my argument out of the way, you are not challenging that I have supported that my position that one can be morally consistent in being against infanticide but being for allowing late-term abortions for the specific exceptions of the Mother's life/health or if the fetus is not viable. Correct? If so, I will cease focusing on defending this argument when addressing your points. If not, then we need to focus on this issue and points that don't address it should be considered off-topic.

    But assuming we are moving on from whether my argument is supported or not, we can move on to what it is that you want to discuss. But to do that, I need to know what your specific argument is. I see the various points that you are making but I don't know what position they are suppose to support. So assuming we are moving on, please directly state your argument.
    Last edited by mican333; February 9th, 2019 at 11:49 AM.

  14. #32
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post

    No, I am using that example because it is something you can do with a born child, but you cannot do with a child in euro. You asked what the moral difference between the two was. You can and they do take children from their mothers, and they can't and don't take fetuses from their mothers.
    You're saying a child has less value when it can't be taken from its mother? I don't see any reason to believe that is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Morality is not largely driven by logic. It is driven by emotion and empathy. The means to achieve moral ends require logical thinking, but the core moral precepts are a starting premise and thus not subject to logical fallacies.
    Sounds like you're claiming its a mixture. So what.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    They usually happen before that. Most often the reason is that the mother is diagnosed with a heart condition where in carrying the child to term represents a significant risk of death for the mother. It s not made at the last minute, but it may not be detected until late in the pregnancy because the strain the fetus places on the mother grows over time as the fetus grows. There are also auto immune conditions and others that can come up but heart disease is the most common for the health of the mother.

    The most common cause of late abortions is the condition of the child which is malformed such that it is not expected to survive and the earlier you terminate the safer it is for the mother and the more humane it is.

    In some cases it is actually all the barriers put up to discourage abortion that causes the abortion to be delayed until it is later in the pregnancy.
    And...? Even if all true, I don't see any significance to the op.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    My argument was that the moral condition of the mother complicates the moral choices we make about the child. This is not true after the child is born, we need only consider his moral condition at that point. (or at least more so)
    You're conflating health with morality. And I don't buy the idea that a mother's health changes the value of the child.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  15. #33
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    You're saying a child has less value when it can't be taken from its mother? I don't see any reason to believe that is true.
    I am not saying that. Let me give you an analogy.

    A dime is woth 10 cents. I might well pick up a dime I see on a countertop if it belongs to no one.
    A dime in a urinal is also worth 10 cents, but I would not pick it up because I have a negative value to getting pee on my hands.

    So a child in a womb is a child, but to do something with that child I must impinge on the mother's rights and that gives me pause just like the pee in the urinal.

    And...? Even if all true, I don't see any significance to the op.
    I was responding to your unrealistic scenario to provide you with a realistic one.

    You're conflating health with morality. And I don't buy the idea that a mother's health changes the value of the child.[/QUOTE]

    It doesn't but it changes the moral calculus you use to examine the situation.

    You asked this "Is there any moral difference between late-term abortion and infanticide?"

    You did not ask "Is there any difference in the moral value of a child just before or just after birth?"

    You asked about the morality of an action, not the moral value of the child. I talked about the moral value of the action, yet you keep ignoring that and asking about the moral value of the child.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. #34
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I am not saying that. Let me give you an analogy.

    A dime is woth 10 cents. I might well pick up a dime I see on a countertop if it belongs to no one.
    A dime in a urinal is also worth 10 cents, but I would not pick it up because I have a negative value to getting pee on my hands.
    There is no "moral calculus" (good vs bad) in your analogy of a dime in a urinal, only an ick factor, which is not the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    So a child in a womb is a child, but to do something with that child I must impinge on the mother's rights and that gives me pause just like the pee in the urinal.
    Again, this has nothing to do with the op, because I'm not advocating that anyone "do something with that child". You're building a straw man so you can knock it down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I was responding to your unrealistic scenario to provide you with a realistic one.
    What unrealistic scenario? If you're talking about my "if some people come argue" in response to your "tradition among some", I still don't see your point. Appealing to tradition is a logical fallacy, and such arguments would do nothing to support a claim that a child has less value shortly before birth than it does after birth.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    You asked this "Is there any moral difference between late-term abortion and infanticide?"

    You did not ask "Is there any difference in the moral value of a child just before or just after birth?"

    You asked about the morality of an action, not the moral value of the child. I talked about the moral value of the action, yet you keep ignoring that and asking about the moral value of the child.
    There is no moral difference in late-term abortion and infanticide because there is no difference in the value of a child just before and just after birth.
    Last edited by evensaul; February 10th, 2019 at 09:05 AM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  17. #35
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    There is no "moral calculus" (good vs bad) in your analogy of a dime in a urinal, only an ick factor, which is not the same thing.
    Right, you do know what an analogy is right? "a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification."

    So the monetary value is a comparison to the moral value, but since you don't seem understand how analogies work, we'll drop it.

    What unrealistic scenario?
    The one where you consider abortion seconds before natural birth. That never happens.

    Appealing to tradition is a logical fallacy.
    Again, a logical fallacy is a fallacy in reasoning. Moral values are not logically deduced, they are presuppositions to moral systems. You don't deduce them, you simply claim them. Tradition is one of the many foundational claims for moral values. You should read up on how logic works.

    http://web.utk.edu/~nolt/courses/logic.html

    An argument succeeds if it meets the following two requirements:

    Its premises are true.
    Its reasoning is valid.
    A moral value based on tradition is a premise. Logical fallacies apply to reasoning.

    There is no moral difference in late-term abortion and infanticide because there is no difference in the value of a child just before and just after birth.
    So the moral value of a human being is always the same and it is wrong to kill them? So why can you execute someone or kill someone in war, or kill someone in self defense? Their moral value is not changed, is it?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  18. #36
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Right, you do know what an analogy is right?
    Yep. The dime was fine, but the urinal was nonsense. Try again if you want to. Or drop it, if you prefer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The one where you consider abortion seconds before natural birth. That never happens.
    What makes you so certain? You should read about Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted of 21 felony counts of late-term abortion, murdering infants after birth, and was suspected of many more. His staff routinely delivered living babies in the third trimester, subsequently killing them by snipping the spinal cord. The jury heard testimony about "special" Sunday sessions, at which only Gosnell and his wife were present, which the jury suspected (and in some cases was able to corroborate) would include cases that were more advanced in time... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

    Gosnell was consistent in his belief that a baby could be killed either before or after birth, and demonstrated that belief in practice. It is logical to believe that there have been, are and will be other Gosnells in the world. Do you really think that Gosnell never aborted a baby that was moments away from natural birth? Or that it never happened anywhere else, ever?

    But if you want to move back from the few seconds or minutes before natural birth, I'm okay with that. Let's discuss the general time period after viability. New York state just passed a new abortion law allowing abortion at any time before birth, if "necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” That determination must be made by a “health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized” under state law, “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice.” The issue of health of the mother includes mental health as decided in Doe V. Bolton: "the U.S. Supreme Court held that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.” https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/ad...-abortion-law/

    What is going to stop abortion providers in New York from doing ninth month (or even last minute) abortions for the "mental health" of the mother?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Again, a logical fallacy is a fallacy in reasoning. Moral values are not logically deduced, they are presuppositions to moral systems. You don't deduce them, you simply claim them. Tradition is one of the many foundational claims for moral values... A moral value based on tradition is a premise. Logical fallacies apply to reasoning.
    Using current moral values as an argument is a logical fallacy. And that is what you are doing, by implying that abortion may be moral for people with that moral tradition. If people have a tradition of enslaving others, is that a legitimate premise from which to evaluate the moral rightness or wrongness of slavery?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    So the moral value of a human being is always the same and it is wrong to kill them? So why can you execute someone or kill someone in war, or kill someone in self defense? Their moral value is not changed, is it?
    I have not claimed that the moral value of a human never changes. What I'm arguing is that the value isn't changed by location inside the womb or by birth.

    Let's compare apples to apples:

    If a mother is attacked by her five year old with a knife, the mother has a right to use lethal force to defend against a mortal and immediate threat, if absolutely necessary, to save her own life. If an unborn baby represents a truly mortal and immediate threat to the mother, then the mother has a right to defend herself, if necessary, through abortion. However, a mother who is stressed out by her 5 year old child, or suffers depression and other mental problems, does not have a moral right to kill her child. Likewise, mental health issues do not give a woman a moral right to kill her unborn baby. Do you disagree?
    Last edited by evensaul; February 11th, 2019 at 02:59 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  19. #37
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Yep. The dime was fine, but the urinal was nonsense. Try again if you want to. Or drop it, if you prefer.
    If you didn't understand it you won't make any further attempt to so I won't bother.

    What makes you so certain? You should read about Kermit Gosnell,
    I have, he is a criminal and a murderer. Murderers do kill people in ways they are not supposed to. I'm talking about legal abortions, not hack doctors committing murder. If someone is a murderer, then they belong in jail.

    Let's discuss the general time period after viability. New York state just passed a new abortion law allowing abortion at any time before birth, if "necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” That determination must be made by a “health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized” under state law, “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice.” The issue of health of the mother includes mental health as decided in Doe V. Bolton: "the U.S. Supreme Court held that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.” https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/ad...-abortion-law/
    OK

    What is going to stop abortion providers in New York from doing ninth month (or even last minute) abortions for the "mental health" of the mother?
    The law and their medical ethics. I very much doubt any doctor or any court will rule that a post-viability abortion is justified by the mother having a bad day or some kind of anxiety etc...

    Using current moral values as an argument is a logical fallacy. And that is what you are doing, by implying that abortion may be moral for people with that moral tradition. If people have a tradition of enslaving others, is that a legitimate premise from which to evaluate the moral rightness or wrongness of slavery?
    Yes, that is a legitimate premise to argue morality from. Morality is subjective so you can make any kind of appeal you like, it all boils down to what you think and feel. I base my own moral beliefs primarily on my sense of empathy and a motive for social responsibility. Other people base theirs on traditions such as those found in religious institutions. I can't say that my methodology is any more correct than theirs, I can only appeal to them to consider their own feelings in light of my reasoning.

    I have not claimed that the moral value of a human never changes. What I'm arguing is that the value isn't changed by location inside the womb or by birth.
    OK, so the moral value of humans can change. What can change it in your view?

    If a mother is attacked by her five year old with a knife, the mother has a right to use lethal force to defend against a mortal and immediate threat, if absolutely necessary, to save her own life.
    What principle are you basing this judgement on?

    If an unborn baby represents a truly mortal and immediate threat to the mother, then the mother has a right to defend herself, if necessary, through abortion.
    OK.

    However, a mother who is stressed out by her 5 year old child, or suffers depression and other mental problems, does not have a moral right to kill her child.
    OK.

    Likewise, mental health issues do not give a woman a moral right to kill her unborn baby. Do you disagree?
    If we are still talking about after the age of viability, then I agree. I don't think we can realisticly link the woman's mental health to the child or that an abortion will resolve those issues.

    Prior to viability I see the moral value of the fetus as significantly lower than after viability. The earlier it is, the lower the moral value and it may no longer be greater than the simple desire of the mother not to have a child.

    Post viability, but pre birth, the moral value of the child is much greter, but not yet as great as the mother. Even if there is only a significant risk to her life (say 30% or more) or long term health, I think the child can be aborted in good concience. After the child is born, we have less of a conflict as the mothers life simply isn't at all dependent on the child.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  20. #38
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The law and their medical ethics. I very much doubt any doctor or any court will rule that a post-viability abortion is justified by the mother having a bad day or some kind of anxiety etc...
    We'll see how long it is before you're proven wrong. Very wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Morality is subjective so you can make any kind of appeal you like, it all boils down to what you think and feel.
    This seems at odds with your earlier "If someone is a murderer, then they belong in jail." If the majority of people (including SCOTUS justices) subjectively decided that any abortion was murder, and such laws were passed, then would any woman who had an abortion "belong in jail"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    What principle are you basing this judgement on?
    The right to self defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Prior to viability I see the moral value of the fetus as significantly lower than after viability. The earlier it is, the lower the moral value and it may no longer be greater than the simple desire of the mother not to have a child.
    Why or how? Is it just a gut assessment or some explainable logic?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  21. #39
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,961
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Is there any moral difference between late term abortion and infanticide?

    I see no moral difference. Abortion is early infanticide.
    It depends on what justification you use for abortion. There are essentially two. The first is the utilitarian view used primarily by people such as Peter Singer. This view argues that the fetus lacks the qualities of personhood and therefore does not deserve the rights accorded to persons (which, for people like Singer, includes certain animals as well as humans). With this view, it is indeed hard to see a moral difference between late term abortions and infanticide, as there are few (if any) cognitive differences between a fetus and a newborn. In fact, back in 2013, I believe, two philosophers argued that infanticide was morally permissible because of the newborn's lack of personhood. They even referred to the procedure as "after birth abortion."

    The second defense of abortion is the bodily autonomy view. This was made famous by Judith Jarvis Thomson. Essentially, because the woman has autonomy over her own body, she has the right to stop a fetus from using it. Going by this view, there is a clear moral difference between infanticide and a late term abortion. A late term abortion involves a woman exercising her autonomy over her own body, while infanticide involves attacking an innocent being who is doing nothing to her.

  22. #40
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    We'll see how long it is before you're proven wrong. Very wrong.
    It doesn't happen often.

    This seems at odds with your earlier "If someone is a murderer, then they belong in jail." If the majority of people (including SCOTUS justices) subjectively decided that any abortion was murder, and such laws were passed, then would any woman who had an abortion "belong in jail"?
    Their moral opinion would not change my moral opinion.

    The right to self-defense.
    What level of threat is sufficient to elicit the right to self-defense such that you kill someone else?

    Why or how? Is it just a gut assessment or some explainable logic?
    All morality has a core of value that is essentially a feeling or motivation. Logic is then applied to an application.

    So why does the moral value of a fetus grow over time?
    1. It becomes more likely to survive the longer it develops. (AKA early fetuses can often end in miscarriage because it simply isn't a viable pregnancy so the odds you re changing its fate increase the older it gets.)
    2. Its ability to feel pain and discomfort increases as it develops.
    3. Its similarity to a person as we know and understand them grows as it develops so we have a higher empathic response to its existence.
    4. Its ability to survive outside of its special environment increases and thus we can more reasonably take responsibility for its life as a society.
    5. Its ability to participate as a meaningful member of society increases as it develops.
    6. As it develops it becomes more identifiable as an individual with distinguishable traits and features we recognize as human.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is infanticide just a very late term abortion?
    By theophilus in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 26th, 2011, 01:04 AM
  2. infanticide and morality
    By tARoPINOS in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 10th, 2007, 11:27 AM
  3. Too Little, Too Late
    By manise in forum Politics
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2006, 01:02 PM
  4. Infanticide
    By AntiMaterialist in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: April 19th, 2005, 03:46 PM

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
  •