What's new
By:

Killing A Newborn No Different Than An Abortion

siromar said:
Not only is it a "coincidence" it is not even true (I mean the claim about the crime rate). I am surprised people can't see this **** for what it is. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is no convincing mechanism for the suggested causality.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2005/may/09/00021/

https://www.economist.com/node/5246700?story_id=5246700

https://online.wsj.com/public/artic...P0pDWul8rc_20061127.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

https://www.isteve.com/Freakonomics_Fiasco.htm

https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/jhr/2004ab/joyce1.htm

https://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/spring2006/mueller.html

In fact, there are about a thousand academic responses that dismantle that silly claim in every conceivable way. And I'm not even against Roe v Wade (I am morally opposed to abortion, but I recognize the need for compromise in making such laws). But lets not distort reality to fit our desires.
Click to expand...

I'm not dismissing you at all but I'm tired as **** and will read these this weekend upcoming and then reply. I didn't want you to think I went AWOL is all.
 
moevillini said:
on a somewhat related topic, I don't understand why some of those who oppose abortion favor restricting a woman's access to birth control
Click to expand...

Who wants to restrict a woman's access to birth control? I don't know of a single person that wants to outlaw it. It's available at most any pharmacy or drug store.
 
moevillini said:
good distinction between the two...
Click to expand...

I disagree. "Dependent" vs. "Independent" doesn't work, because both a fetus and an infant are totally dependent on the parents for survival. That's basically the guy's argument, and I don't think there's really any good way to refute that. But as I said, it also goes to show that rational argument isn't everything. I agree with the argument in principle, but I'm never going to kill an infant, because it's just wrong.
 
AtheistPreacher said:
I disagree. "Dependent" vs. "Independent" doesn't work, because both a fetus and an infant are totally dependent on the parents for survival. That's basically the guy's argument, and I don't think there's really any good way to refute that. But as I said, it also goes to show that rational argument isn't everything. I agree with the argument in principle, but I'm never going to kill an infant, because it's just wrong.
Click to expand...

although one difference is that a newborn can depend on many others to fulfill the role of the mother, the fetus in the womb cannot, so in that sense it is independent of the birth mother
 
Scat said:
Who wants to restrict a woman's access to birth control? I don't know of a single person that wants to outlaw it. It's available at most any pharmacy or drug store.
Click to expand...

there are ways to restrict access that do not involve outlawing something.



(there are some parallels here to second amendment arguments for example)
 
moevillini said:
although one difference is that a newborn can depend on many others to fulfill the role of the mother, the fetus in the womb cannot, so in that sense it is independent of the birth mother
Click to expand...

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.
 
siromar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wow.. things go so far.

I guess you can say all humans are dependent life forms since we depend on each other for survival or at least we depend on food to keep us alive so all humans are dependent.

A fetus survival requires nothing but the survival of the mother? It doesn't need the placenta or the umbilical cord?
 
The Black Swordsman said:
Wow.. things go so far.

I guess you can say all humans are dependent life forms since we depend on each other for survival or at least we depend on food to keep us alive so all humans are dependent.

A fetus survival requires nothing but the survival of the mother? It doesn't need the placenta or the umbilical cord?
Click to expand...

What? I am starting to think you're just a chatbot.
 
siromar said:
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.
Click to expand...

relevant to what? what's the issue here?
 
moevillini said:
relevant to what? what's the issue here?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 Black Swordsman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Black Swordsman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
TroutBum said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

ho ho ho
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top