Thoughts? You can click the image for the article, which is (somewhat misleadingly) not an actual argument in support of infanticide, but rather a summary (with light counterpoints) to a paper which presents the argument in support of infanticide.

Absolutely evil. This is what hedonism and other new age influences have lead to, killing of children post birth having an argument for it. I am relatively pro-abortion in that I condemn it in the majority of cases but I'm not for banning it, however this is disgusting. If you're such a shit human being to want to kill that child maybe you're the one who needs to be aborted after birth via chainsaw.

so apparently this is a thing [+]

Thoughts? You can click the image for the article, which is (somewhat misleadingly) not an actual argument in support of infanticide, but rather a summary (with light counterpoints) to a paper which presents the argument in support of infanticide.

I think I vomited in my mouth a little.

We have come to the place where it is somehow considered reasonable to make such an argument at all and in any light other than grim humor. There is a stark contrast between killing and murder, but this? This is the advocation, or at very least the norming and conditioning to, the murder of children, unquestionably so at that.

I might not agree with the "choice" philosophy, but I admit they have some points. This concept is off the rails for a "choice" argument if it was to be anything other than parody. Consider me skeptical if they say they were just posing this in hypothetical thought and vacuum; I haven't even that much trust in me to believe them.

so apparently this is a thing [+]

Thoughts? You can click the image for the article, which is (somewhat misleadingly) not an actual argument in support of infanticide, but rather a summary (with light counterpoints) to a paper which presents the argument in support of infanticide.

That can't be real.

@POOHEAD189 Sure it can. I read the article.

I personally feel that terminating an infant after birth, barring some sort of encephalopathy or birth defect would be a violation of my Hippocratic oath.

However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford."

It is hard to imagine that the economic cost would not be clear long before birth except in the case of an undetected medical condition.

"we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child."

Ok if we are talking severe and undetected abnormalities...

"then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn."

Again in the case of defects I can go with you here but in the case that you discovered a sufficiently severe defect via amnio weeks or months in the past, you would be negligent to hold off until after birth for the abortion. Similarly the economic cost of raising a child with no undetected defect ought to be clear FAR in advance of birth and you would be negligent to not abort earlier if that were you criteria.

"we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons."

That much we agree on, if you are going to abort, abort as early as possible. I can see the logical outgrowth they are driving at but it is hard to see where it would really be applicable sans a defect discovered after birth. Waiting till after birth for any reason other than an undetected defect seems like negligence.

@PennyI suppose if it's a very marginal chance for an extreme case with (likely) very irresponsible parents, I can see why it can be implemented in some off-chance case I suppose. I admit I didn't read the article, thanks for clearing it up.

I'm pro-choice myself, though I am not familiar with any legal procedures about such cases as pertaining to this article.

@POOHEAD189 They don't really cite any actual cases, they are just talking in broad theoreticals.

Most early stage abortions are carried out solely for economic/social reasons of course.

Yup, that's generally the consensus. Mistakes being made in some form or another.

I am relatively pro-abortion in that I condemn it in the majority of cases but I'm not for banning it...

Approximately my position as well. I mean "condemn" is a strong word -- I try not to judge (try, I said), but I certainly don't like it. I recognize that it's not my call to make.

Anyway....

That can't be real.

I mean the paper is real. There's nothing to suggest this is actually happening in the real world (I mean, not in a statistically significant way -- there are crazies who put babies in trash cans, but that's not the point). The article is talking about a real paper, which is gleefully sliding down that slippery slope we've been talking about since Roe v Wade. Possibly, I suppose, in the cynical pursuit of controversy, in which case I bought it hook line and sinker.

I personally feel that terminating an infant after birth, barring some sort of encephalopathy or birth defect would be a violation of my Hippocratic oath.

I guess this is the part where I play my disability card... let's play it gently. I mean.... there's an element of eugenics in this, right? That's not the reason you (or anyone else, probably) might go along with it, not at all -- but that element is totally there, right? I mean someone, someday, would have to go compile a list of acceptable conditions under which a living baby can be legally murdered. ADD babies live, autistic babies get the axe, or whatever. I don't think anybody anywhere wants to even think about that, let alone actually DO it.

I'm gonna get off that point because this just jumped out at me (from a part of the article you quoted):

However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford."

And what jumps out is, like.... nothing else works that way. If you take out a loan for a car, and then your social or psychological circumstances change and the car becomes a burden, you still have to pay your car loan. If you go to school and major in lesbian dance theory, and the economic circumstances of society change so drastically that lesbian dance theorists aren't making money (who could fathom such a dystopian world?), you still have to pay your student loans. But the author (apparently?) thinks that helpless little babies are a whole other story -- you can just whack them against a wall. Like what in the fuck.

In unrelated news, apparently Trump was right about getting wiretapped. Even CNN is reporting on it. Six months ago versus today.

Interesting, innit.

Well the FBI wire tapped Manafort because of supposed ties to Russia, not Trump himself.

A secret order authorized by the court that handles the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) began after Manafort became the subject of an FBI investigation that began in 2014. It centered on work done by a group of Washington consulting firms for Ukraine's former ruling party, the sources told CNN.

Sources say the second warrant was part of the FBI's efforts to investigate ties between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives. Such warrants require the approval of top Justice Department and FBI officials, and the FBI must provide the court with information showing suspicion that the subject of the warrant may be acting as an agent of a foreign power.

But Obama himself didn't wiretapped Trump, which is what Trump claimed.

Well the FBI wire tapped Manafort because of supposed ties to Russia, not Trump himself.
<Snipped quote>

<Snipped quote>

But Obama himself didn't wiretapped Trump, which is what Trump claimed.

Here's the whole timeline of events. I mean until politifact alters the rating.... FWIW the Manafort phones in question are, in fact, located in Trump Tower.

<Snipped quote by Penny>

I guess this is the part where I play my disability card... let's play it gently. I mean.... there's an element of eugenics in this, right? That's not the reason you (or anyone else, probably) might go along with it, not at all -- but that element is totally there, right? I mean someone, someday, would have to go compile a list of acceptable conditions under which a living baby can be legally murdered. ADD babies live, autistic babies get the axe, or whatever. I don't think anybody anywhere wants to even think about that, let alone actually DO it.

Iceland already provides screening for babies with down syndrome and give women the option to abort. The majority of them take it. There are numerous other diseases which we already routinely screen for and a woman might opt to abort if it were. If I were carrying a fetus which were projected to have anencephaly of course I would abort. If it is eugenics to try to avoid genetic diseases, then all those gene therapy trials are in trouble. Frankly I hope we are one day able to edit out such genetic defects, although we have a considerable way to go.

a list of acceptable conditions under which a living baby can be legally murdered.

According to the article the Netherlands alreay has such a list:

the neonate’s suffering must be unbearable or the fetus must be suffering or be likely to suffer after birth;

there must not be a prospect of improvement, and in the case of a late-term abortion, the fetal disorder must be so serious that medical experts believe that medical treatment after birth would be futile;

the parents must have been fully informed of the diagnosis and prognosis, and both the physician and the parents must be convinced that no reasonable alternative exists given the situation of the child or the fetus;

at least one other, independent physician must have examined the child or fetus and given a written opinion on compliance with the due criteria of the kind listed above;

and the termination of life or of the pregnancy must be carried out with all due care. (Euthanasia and Newborn Infants, Government of the Netherlands website (last visited Jan. 13, 2015); 2007 Directions, 2.3(a & c-e) & 4.6.2 (a-b & d-f).)

And what jumps out is, like.... nothing else works that way. If you take out a loan for a car, and then your social or psychological circumstances change and the car becomes a burden, you still have to pay your car loan. If you go to school and major in lesbian dance theory, and the economic circumstances of society change so drastically that lesbian dance theorists aren't making money (who could fathom such a dystopian world?), you still have to pay your student loans. But the author (apparently?) thinks that helpless little babies are a whole other story -- you can just whack them against a wall. Like what in the fuck.

Ah the old fetus/car loan equivalency. Seriously? How is this even remotely similar? You didn't borrow the fetus from someone...unless ... you DID?!

It is a little unclear in the article that he is explicitly saying that a baby should be aborted for what we might think of as conventional economic reasons. He seems to be initially suggesting that a condition might be discovered that would make the care of the baby an impossible financial burden. He later broadens this to include 'non-medically' necessary abortions for economic reasons, but plenty of conditions are cripplingly expensive to the parents without medically necessitating abortion. He does extrapolate that there isn't a clear distinction to be made between a late term abortion and an after birth abortion.

Ironically the same distinction gets used in the opposite direction by the pro-womenbeingforcedtocarrybabiestotermregardlessoftheirwishes crowd. I suppose it is something that should be left up to the mothers but I personally would never be comfortable euthanizing a healthy newborn.

In a perfect world we could screen for all genetic disease and treat or terminate early. Or genetically edit, that would also be awesome.

Sent the article to OB, that will put the cat among the pigeons!

OB?

Obstetrics and Gyno

Ooooh gotcha ;)

You can almost guarantee that all communications, in and out, were monitored and reviewed as well, @mdk. There is great question to how discriminatory they would be about it, which is to say likely not at all, as we already know well that the opposition was exercising their sitting power and authority to browse Donald Trump's campaign. There's a few other interesting components to it as well, to include that in some cases they might not have had not the proper authorization to continue their taps apparently, but we will see in time. There is nothing more classy than spying on political opponents because of "Russia". What only further stokes these flames are the amount of lies that abound too.

On another and wholly unrelated note, a child being a "financial burden" is an understatement. If one is having children, they sign away their right to that argument by being an adult and accepting fault or problem for their decisions. What I mean in this is, whether one likes it or not, they have to accept the responsibility of their actions; the child did not spontaneously materialize from the ether. The parents of the child chose, either by their inaction to prevent having a child in the first place, or by having a child until this information was revealed, thus negating any place to complain. If they did not want to deal with the consequences, they shouldn't have undertaken or risked it in the first place - the subsequent offspring shouldn't be the ones to pay their price for incompetent parents when dealing with the subject of life and death.

Additionally "non-medical" reasons are very much that slippery slope, worse than any arbitrary medical reasons as is. At that point you could invent any explanation you deem fit that is "too difficult" and thus making it fitting to abort the child. Almost an exact parallel line of logic that leads to the hypothetical argument of post-birth "abortion".