I thought I'd make a thread about actual tangible news in contrast to the current raging conspiracy theories and religious debates. So a group of Oxford medical ethicists have made a case for killing a newborn, humanely, being no different than aborting a fetus, and subsequently the primary author has become the recipient of death threats. The article has added fuel to the arguments of pro-lifers who say that the article is a "chilling promotion of infanticide". So what do you think? Clearly the article was a thought experiment, and it has received much more notoriety than the authors intended, but should a debate be started about so grave an issue in the first place?

I think it's pretty shocking and that of course newborn babies should be considered people as they are capable of thought, but I also think the reaction to the article is a bit much. Then again maybe the author should have anticipated that it would cause quite a stir in the first place.

_________________
Every fresh corpse brought into that establishment meant a fulfilled promise of ungodly gladness, of irreverent gratification; a return to the rapturous tumult of the arteries which transformed my grisly task into one of beloved devotion - yet every carnal satiation exacted its toll.

Eh? And a baby that's five minutes from slamming down the chute isn't capable of thought? Really, now Jojobobo.

I support abortion but I oppose the killing of a newborn. I also acknowledge that there is little fundamental difference from a baby that is five minutes old and a baby that is five minutes from being born, but an arbitrary boundary needs to be placed, and passing through the birth canal is as absolute as any.

_________________
My North Star: Jose Gomez
I'm an introvert. Now shut up so I can be happy. Except for you, helpful sales bot. Also, download this.
Away from The House, yet forever near to my heart

I never said that, of course they are. That's why I support the law which states it is acceptable to abort a child up to the 24th week of pregnancy, which although they can think then, they can't always survive outside of the mother's womb so I think it should still be the parents' choice. I also support the termination of children with disabilities later, as the choice is obviously more difficult.

_________________
Every fresh corpse brought into that establishment meant a fulfilled promise of ungodly gladness, of irreverent gratification; a return to the rapturous tumult of the arteries which transformed my grisly task into one of beloved devotion - yet every carnal satiation exacted its toll.

This is where I'd draw the line - the first trimester. Then again, I'm not the variety of person that would ever be able to give birth, so it's not my decision.

The way the article is presented, it's a special case, and the very same case that would apply to an abortion - severe congenital defect or other life-impinging damage during the birthing process.

This baby. He has everything he needs to keep his body running, sortof - but he's just a body, and he's actually pretty far out of the statistical prognosis of nearly every other child born with no brain (between minutes or a day of life).

Also, severe cases of holoprosencephaly, as in, there's a brain, but no hemispheres - this can create a baby with a single huge eye and a proboscis-like nose that sticks out of the forehead. These babies are also unable to survive for long.

_________________

Yeah I suppose I did misrepresent the article a bit; I'd read the sensationalist news article beforehand and it stuck in my mind a bit.

I can't remember the specifics, but at high school in religious studies I was made to watch a documentary about a child with severe learning difficulties who couldn't survive without constant life support. His parents even had to suck the spit from his mouth with a straw because he had no reflex to swallow it down himself and he could effectively drown on it. He was incapable of being happy and cried incessantly, he was also completely deaf and blind if I recall correctly. His parents went through a lengthy legal battle to actually have the right to let him die; they eventually won. He was taken off life support and left to die while sedated. I think in that in those circumstances, the right choice was made.

_________________
Every fresh corpse brought into that establishment meant a fulfilled promise of ungodly gladness, of irreverent gratification; a return to the rapturous tumult of the arteries which transformed my grisly task into one of beloved devotion - yet every carnal satiation exacted its toll.

So you picked a topic that is steeped with religious opinions? Every position that I could espouse is based on my religious perceptions about life, love, and murder... If you want a religious debate, I will gladly tell you my opinions on the matter.



If everyone respected the sanctity of human life, there won't be a debate; there won't even be a suggestion of a debate. Therefore, my naive opinion that no one should have this debate because it is a no-brainer that we shouldn't kill newborns won't keep people from actually considering killing newborns for whatever reason that they believe justifies denying others the right to live. I vote Yes to the question of whether or not we should debate the topic.

My position is simple: Yes to life whenever possible.

_________________
1 Corinthians 3:18


Truth. Love. Faith.

It's just life. They're just newborns. Feed them lead and devour them to gain their strength.

_________________
Nothing can stop the Smooze.

Damn I'm good at this game.

You know, I didn't want to do this, but I call helbokos sockpuppet on you, constipation!

It's shenannagins! Everyone grab a broom!

I feel like in most cases, life support is the wrong answer. It seems like it's just prolonging the life of a body that's trying to die. It's an unfortunately complicated ethical question though; if we have the ability to sustain life, should we use it? And where do we draw the line? When should a terminal patient be allowed to terminate? I guess things were simpler a hundred years ago when people who were severely ill or injured didn't have so many options for staving off death.

_________________
"Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!"

Okay, um...

Severely/terminally retarded babies: seems ethical in some situations.

Inconvenient or unfashionable, such as a newborn girl in one-child rural china: powerfully uncool.

Now... helbokos sockpuppet on you, constipation! Dun dun duuuun!

Firstly, your avatar and premise are typically repulsive, typical for HWLFP.
Secondly, your date of joining corresponds nearly exactly to HWLFP's latest ban.
Thirdly, you have demonstrated a detailed knowledge of long-past goings-on in the house.
Fourthly, your use of phrases characteristic of HWLFP, eg, "My face when nobody remembers the X lady" cf "To the left is my cum face."

NOW, everyone grab a broom!

If a person's kidney fails, should they not receive dialysis? That could be construed as a form of life support? Or do you specifically mean heart or brain failure? Please define what you mean by life support.

_________________
1 Corinthians 3:18


Truth. Love. Faith.

That's why I said it's complicated. I don't know where that line gets drawn. I can only speak for myself; if I ever reach the point where I'll never get out of bed again, don't bother treating me.

_________________
"Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!"

That's what I want to happen should I become brain-dead, or really any other medical concern that would leave me just as you described.

_________________

Actually ytzk, Constipation's joining date is much closer to your own joining date than to Hеllbokos' latest known activity and ban.

Considering the above and his prowess to bring back the posts you instantly delete before anyone else can see them...

_________________
Nothing can stop the Smooze.

SPEAKING OF WHICH


Also, to the left is my shit face. This is my cum face. Learn the difference, youre bringing daddy shame.

You grow a beard each time you ejaculate?

_________________
Nothing can stop the Smooze.

I'm manly like that.

Also, I ritually shave all my head and body hair before sitting on the throne, like any self-respecting gentleman.

That paper's thesis seems like a logical extension of Michael Tooley's "Abortion and Infanticide" which was published in the 70s and was discussed a lot since then. In my opinion, both articles base their conclusions on false premises. Newborns are not fully sentient beings but they are capable of feeling pain, hunger, pleasure, some basic emotions etc. and they have interests that should be protected.
I support early abortion in any case because if a being can't feel pain/displeasure/pleasure it can't have an interest (a very simple one) of not feeling pain or displeasure - so it's not capable of having any interests (and, of course, rights) that could be protected. I also support abortion at any time in cases where mothers's basic interests (her life, her health etc.) are endangered because the rights of potential human beings can't be more important than the rights of an actual human being.

Same could be said about a lot of animals we kill and consume. My initial point stands.

_________________
Nothing can stop the Smooze.

Pish posh, if we let mere facts get in the way of a witchhunt, then where are we going as a society?

Besides, I meant the second-last activity and banning.

Also, while you were distracted here, other quantum-uncertain posts went unobserved elsewhere and their waveforms remain uncollapsed. Ha!

This is a bizarre thing to talk about. Surely it's subjective to the given situation and inevitably somewhere a choice might have to be made whether the thing will live or die. Some circumstances would point toward not killing a baby and others would point to the reverse.
The truth is, there is never going to be a definitive answer to this question as there will always be a situation where one or the other could be completely necessary.
I suppose the real question here is where it is completely necessary? More importantly, who decides it is so? One's self? The government? Ones Faith? Ones Family?.
In my opinion kill it if you want, weather it feels pain, weather it is being robbed of a life, who really gives a fuck anyway? You think the kid will when it grows up? You think a man 40 years from now will actually saying thank you? I won't preach on the soap box like a complete spastic but I will say, I think not.
My other, slightly more idiopathic point of view would be that people should let other people make up their own fucking minds.

_________________
Rustic Pleasureland.

You said to feed them lead. Do you mean literally, as in they'll eat lead, or figuratively, as in they're sitting in front of a firing squad? Either way, you have to remove the lead or you'll be poisoned.

_________________

Figurative sense + removing the metal afterwards. We don't want to poison our food. Someone could die.


Actually, what I posted earlier was his second-last activity. Forgot about this.

_________________
Nothing can stop the Smooze.

Dammit, I meant that rodney dale was banned shortly after I joined, around the time constipation appeared.

Having just reviewed his posts, I admit he shows both restraint and wit, but I stand by my wild accusation.

Jeez, what's happened to this place? Back then, I only stopped being accused of being hoolfpoo when Smuel appeared.

p.s. Hmm, I note also that Manshee and Hellrust share a casual use of the word 'spastic'.

Given his convenient appearance, I am suspicious now of Constipation's comment on manshee's trump card thread. Is it a modus operandi of hoolfpoo to protect one puppet by exposing another? Dun dun duuun!