Thread: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Ah, once they've got brain activity and emotions I wouldn't approve of it..

Next thing you know they'll be pushing for killing unwanted children 1-5 no there not people like us they have no soul. FUDGED UP! Someone needs to slap the shit outta who ever's pushing killing newborns. JMO

In one of my Early Childhood Education classes in college my professor said that we are not human at birth. We have to learn to be human. Children who have been raised by animals have never been able to fully become integrated into human society.
Every baby has the potential to become human.
(I'm not saying I agree with this, just that this is what I was taught in 1978)

risky thread in the "no political debates" forum.
what a rebel, i love it.

this begs the question if pro-lifers arent doing this to make an exaggerated point.

if not, its repulsive.

i wouldnt want my GF to ever get an abortion, prenatal or "post birth". but it isnt my decision its hers

Dangerous thought processes there.
I guess by declaring open season on unwanted children below a certain age will help reduce the population.
But I think a better idea would be to eliminate all those that fall below a minumum IQ level.
That way we are left with a small population full of smart people....

The articles are clearly being used by those with the political opinion they are against abortions. Babies born are then thrown in as a secondary arguement stating killing a fetus in the womb and killing a new born baby is the same thing. You have to read the entire context of the article. It does not simply condone killing new born babies of course not.

It is a dishonest and manipulative exercise in promoting an anti abortion position by equating killing a new born and unborn fetus as the same. It also further deliberately confuses the two issues by stating
new borns are killed because they are derformed just like unborn fetuses are aborted because they are deformed.

This is a classic example of intellectual dishonesty in these articles.

Issues regarding aborting a baby still in the womb and then outside the womb are clearly different issues. Those who attempt to suggest the two are
the same are deliberately doing so for political reasons of supporting anti abortion arguements.

This is an attempt to suggest if you believe in abortion you have no problem killing new born babies. That is absolutely dishonest and a deliberate smeer
tactic anti abortionists have been using for years blowing up pictures of fetuses to look like little babies when they are in fact no biger then a few centimetres.

The law is clear. Once a baby is born and is capable of breathing on its own, if you kill it, that is infanticide a type of murder. Please let us not confuse
that issue with a fetus still in the womb.

As well these articles are dispicable in that they also go on to suggest euthanasia is the same as abortion and is also wrong.

I wrote my Master's in Law on euthanasia laws. It is a very complex subject.

A person in final stages of death and in chronic pain should be allowed to die with dignity. The onlyy two US states that allow
dying patients to be allowed to choose when to die are Washington and now Oregon. Patients are screened so that only
those with cruel pain and in their final stages of death are allowed the option.

So please anyone who wants to suggest a dying person in pain must suffer and choke on their lung fluid or scream out in
pain, give it a rest because one day you too may be in their shoes.

If you are a disabled person and worry euthanasia will be used to get rid of you of course you have a right
to be concerned but that is a seperate issue and no one like me who is a proponent of euthanasia is saying
use it so openly we will have governments using it to avoid having to look after the aged and the disabled.

There is contraversy over someone who is otherwise physically healthy should be allowed to kill himself or ask
others to do it. That is another issue.

What this article did was to suggest if you kill a new born deformed baby that is evil and unethical.

The fact is in rural areas babies with severe deformities are left to die by doctors or injected with
an overdose if their deformities are so hideous their being alive causes them pain and suffering.

In rural areas country doctors have had to do this.

Nature can be cruel-keeping something alive in horrid pain does not make it ethical
or religiously morally superior.
It is a very complex issue.

I only express my opinions. If you have ones to the contrary I respect them-just don't try reduce and
wrongfully mispresent the issues please.

I am talking to those writers of the articles not the thread starter who brought up an interesting topic to debate which
I welcome and think is a really important issue to discuss because as we live longer and are born with severe deformities
thanks to modern medicine the question has now become when is quality of life as important as quantity of life...
are we allowed any say about the quality of life?

Should a severely deformed baby born with no brain be kept alive simply because it breaths? Does that constitute life?

How about a baby with a body growing out of its head that can not be severed that renders it unable to breath or eat or move without
horrible pain?

What about a child born with no eyes, ears, nose, mouth?

You can no always reduece these to simple black and white issues. Sometimes we need to look at each fact situation is what I am saying,

Originally Posted by SOUL-DRIFTER

Dangerous thought processes there.
I guess by declaring open season on unwanted children below a certain age will help reduce the population.
But I think a better idea would be to eliminate all those that fall below a minumum IQ level.
That way we are left with a small population full of smart people....

Haha sometimes I believe this would be truly better for us all..

But the problem is that smart people don't often give birth to more smart people than a dumb person would.

So if we cut down the population to only having smart people, we'd have to kill a lot of their dumb kids. The above average population would dwindle until eventually everyone was pretty much related, which would lead to retarded kids all over again lol

It's disgusting that people think babies are not worth living compared to adults. If anything, the babies have a better reason to live. They are total blank canvases. They are un-corrupted by the madness of the world today. They are totally pure and innocent.

I don't think getting rid of dumb people is the answer either. After all, every human being on earth is capable of the same level of learning as everyone else. The problem is the "dumb people" aren't given the same opportunities, or become brainwashed by the media into thinking their education should take a back burner to other things.

I'm am getting sicker and sicker of living on this wretched planet.