Comment history

A New Frontier for Abortion

You mistake me if you think I'm trying to bait-and-switch. Nor is this an "argument" by any accepted definition of the term; I've not asserted anything, and only given you the opportunity to speak your mind. Both you and Mania seem to know my motives all too well.

Your view has not been made clear either regarding my above question (agreement or disagreement with "post-birth abortion") unless you've made it clear elsewhere that I'm not aware of - are you stating your agreement with Mania? Do you mean that either the sign of neuroactivity or viability is the point at which such a status gets conferred? Is it the common opinion of society that confers the status of "human" on the newborn and thus offers it protection? The value ascribed to it by the mother? Something inherent at birth?

All cards on the table: I want to understand why the death of a newborn would be inconsistant with a woman's right to choose.

There's numerous legal examples I can cite if that would help the question be more tangible.

February 11, 2013 at 10:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A New Frontier for Abortion

Mania, I gave the title of the article and the journal, and invited anyone to look it up. Their credentials are legitimate. Here is the original document that was published:

Cait, so "post birth abortion" (so titled) would be acceptable if the mother perceived she could not support the baby?

February 11, 2013 at 9:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

A New Frontier for Abortion

Given that is the case for a fetus, would you feel uncomfortable with the argument made by two ethicists in the Journal of Medical Ethics: "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" Abstract below, you can find the original link easily on Google if you want to read the whole thing.

"Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

February 10, 2013 at 10:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A New Frontier for Abortion

I'm sorry, "individual" in the sense of the individual fetus on the basis of viability and/or brain activity? Or "individual" in the sense of the individual mother bestowing such a status as "human being"?

February 10, 2013 at 10:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A New Frontier for Abortion

Cait, while no one agrees about that - or much of anything in the debate - when would you grant the status "human being" to a fetus? At birth? Another time prior to that?

February 10, 2013 at 9:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )