Killing A Newborn No Different Than An Abortion

[moevillini]

But how is that relevant? I can phrase your claim differently. A baby needs someone's INTERVENTION to stay alive. You need to go out of your way to ensure their survival. A fetus survival requires nothing except the survival of the mother. So in some ways, a baby is even more dependent. I can twist this argument in any way I wish to prove whatever I want. It is easy since dependence is never used in such context.

relevant to what? what's the issue here?

 

[The Black Swordsman]

What? I am starting to think you're just a chatbot.

I knew you would have nothing else to say after I dismantled your comment.

 

[TroutBum]

relevant to what? what's the issue here?

The chinaman is not the issue here, Moe. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, Moe. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, Moe, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.

 

[TroutBum]

I knew you would have nothing else to say after I dismantled your comment.

This is solid.

 

[Siro]

relevant to what? what's the issue here?

I meant, how's your definition of dependence unique? Why is dependence on a specific person different than dependence on several people?

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Lets say the mother dies when the fetus is inside her. The fetus will die.

Lets say the mother dies after baby is born. Baby still can survive.

 

[TroutBum]

Lets say the mother dies when the fetus is inside her. The fetus will die.

Lets say the mother dies after baby is born. Baby still can survive.

The baby can survive inside a dead mother for a few minutes. It has been reported that babies have been born two days after the mother has been dead, but kept on machines that keep her heart pumping.

 

[Siro]

Lets say the mother dies when the fetus is inside her. The fetus will die.

Lets say the mother dies after baby is born. Baby still can survive.

It's generally not worth-while responding to you, but since this is what moevillini probably meant, I will.

That difference is arbitrary. There is no logical connection between the fact you stated and the moral argument for abortion. I don't disagree that such distinctions are the main reason behind the LEGAL (meaning practical) argument. Since a fetus' survival fully depends on the mother's, forcing an unwilling mother to carry a baby to term seems wrong. Additionally, many will try to end the pregnancy anyway, risking serious injury. All of that is well and good. But the moral objection remains; viability is not relevant to the status of the fetus from an objective stand point. A fetus contains the full working DNA blueprint of a human being, and such is one. If viability trumps humanity in a moral argument, then the doctor in the OP article is fully correct. Babies, or any other group of people, have only as much a right to life as their caretakers bestow on them. I disagree with that view.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

I've never said if doing one or the other is more moral or less moral, infact I haven't mentioned the word moral once until this reply.

I've simply stated the difference between abortion and killing a newborn.

 

[fallenchicken]

I like babies as long as you people don't bring them out in public.

 

[moevillini]

The chinaman is not the issue here, Moe. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, Moe. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, Moe, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.

well yeah, I s'pose if that's the slant you want to put on things...

ho ho ho

 

[TroutBum]

I like babies as long as you people don't bring them out in public.

What about when God has his first begotten? I'm going to try and time it so my next daughter can marry Him.