"Abortion makes infanticide ok if we call it Post-birth-abortion"

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012 ( 39 moms have responded )

3,377

8

66

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born. Or when it is healthy. Just as pro-abortionists and pro-choice advocats may say a fetus is charcterized, not a "person" only a "potential person".



OK, this was posted earlier but was closed for personal reason of the poster. I find it very interesting and NO it is not because of any reason other than understanding how the paper was devised. It is a philosophical approach, nothing more, nothing less. It does not mean the ethical philosophers agree with their arguement, they are simply presenting information that relates to fetal abortion and post-birth abortion.



I for one am pro-life, anti-abortion. I do not agree with abortion as a whole. I do feel if a mother will potentially die from pregnancy, that is an exception to the rule. After reading the below information and truly thinking about it, I have come to realize I may need to re-think how I feel in regards to a seriously ill fetus/newborn. When I say serious, I do not include those such as DS, or limb loss. I am talking extreme, serious, complicated illnesses. Such as Tay Sach disease. That will only leave the child to suffer until it's death at an early age. I am still on the fence with that though, so, don't jump down my throat. ;)



"What these young colleagues are spelling out is what would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new."



After, reading the below articles. Realize that they can go either way. They can either inhance a pro-choice/pro-abortion mind set, simply by the thorough explanation of the characteristics of a fetus/newborn. It can also provide a better footing for me, a pro-lifer. Since post-abortion can be seen as inhumane just as fetal abortion is to some, such as me. Give it an unbiased approach when you read. Then see where you stand after letting it sink in. ;)



http://www.circleofmoms.com/track_link.p...



http://www.circleofmoms.com/track_link.p...



http://www.circleofmoms.com/track_link.p...





Yes, this is a debate but not on your inner-most feelings. It is on the philosophical idea's presented. No personal attacks. Keep it real people. Give your opinion but don't undermind another's opinion. I am interested in how each of you view the idea's persented in the articles. I understand we all have our opinion on the abortion subject, that is fine. It is a very sensitive topic.

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

[deleted account]

Dang MeMe! They let you bleed like that for 6 months?! That's horrifying. :( When I went in bleeding heavily (soaked 3 pads in under an hour) they WERE going to send me home, but my (now) ex pushed to have me checked out... as soon as the doc checked me I was admitted asap.



As for the topic of the op.... I'm pro-life and don't personally feel that any abortions should be performed unless the mother is actually dying (or the baby is dead... since neither of those options promote life), so obviously late term abortion or after birth 'abortion' is not something I can even comprehend as ok.



I can certainly see how ending the life of a very sick, in pain, terminal infant would be more humane, but it's still not a concept I can get behind.

Caitlin - posted on 03/03/2012

1,915

5

171

This is kind of like a debate on euthanasia that is mislabeled.. A child that will only feel pain for a very brief life - yes - I agree it should be allowed. Call me sick, but if I was lying on a hospital bed wtih no hope of recovery and in extreme pain, i'd love someone to do the same to me..

Mother - posted on 03/03/2012

1,627

79

28

Injections are most definitely done. In the first trimester a drug is injected and then I presume suctioned. However in later terms progesterone is injected to bring on delivery in which the fetus dies.

Mother - posted on 03/03/2012

1,627

79

28

I stand corrected. I just looked up the law and while you "could" legally have an abortion....the problem isn't with the "law" but rather finding a physician to perform the procedure. The bill passed in the House of Commons but died on a tie vote in the Senate. So I was wrong. I knew it had passed but did not realize that it didn't make it by the reading. Wow....I wonder how many other people don't know this??



http://www.abortionincanada.ca/index.htm...

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/03/2012

18,920

9

3002

I know MeMe, I was just trying to say I have never heard of abortions being done by injection.

This conversation has been closed to further comments

39 Comments

View replies by

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

What's more odd is that I sense a bit of glee from the OP that this article is a new trump card in the anti-abortion argument. I see no difference between this article and the same old arguments of when a fetus is a person and when it is not. It just has more of the nasty baby killer edge to it when used in a certain way to support certain arguments.



Rebecca, I wanted to see how people felt about the article. If you want to play touchy feely, I am not up for that. You came in here stating infactual comments. I simply told you, you were incorrect.



Don't tell me how I feel because it is obvious you have no clue. So assuming my OP was a biased stance for anti-abortion was incorrect.



I didn't write the article. As a matter in fact, when I first read it I was PISSED right OFF! I was angry. I read it again and again. Then I realized they were not saying anything but opening up a justifiable reasoning that could be for or against abortion. This is why I say you did not read the links I provided, not fully. If you did, then I apologize. You obviously took it personally, rather than as theory and a philosophical paper.



Yeah, I think the article has become, I'm speaking of the several posts here, a platform to imply (which is a pretty common tactic by the anti-abortion folks) that anyone who thinks a later abortion is a woman's choice, that those views are on par with murdering babies.



Honestly, I already thought anyone that are pro-abortion and pro-choice believe in murder, especially that of a healthy unborn baby. Whether it is at 3 weeks or 40 week (and all in between) So, how is that for size? I don't only have that opinion if you feel post-birth abortion is OK or because of this article. However, I do feel there are exceptions, as I already posted in my latest replying post.



I only see you referencing and speaking to me in any of your comments. That is not what I asked for. I am offended that you felt it was your place to do such a thing. Nasty, is all I have to say there.....



The paper is a philosophical approach. It is not intended to gain a footing for only one side. It is intended to help either stance in their argument or get people thinking and perhaps redefine their views.



I have heard many pro-abortionists say a fetus, even at late term is NOT a person. They say that it is the choice of the mother, simply because the baby has not been born, thus rendering it non-existent in our world; not a person. So, how the hell is post-birth different to those people? The article supports that theory, now doesn't it?



I guess I got some hyprocrites instead. NO biggie. Carry on then...

Mother - posted on 03/03/2012

1,627

79

28

This post was deleted so I'm reposting it. One would think you would get more then 3 minutes to 'edit' a post.



If you mean something different then be SPECIFIC. If you meant 33 weeks...say 33 weeks and get someone's take on it. If you mean 20 weeks....Say that and then get their take on THAT. There are a million different scenarios that COULD come from that example. Don't wait for someone to assume you meant full term and then cut up what they say. Say what you mean. Don't leave it open to interpretation and then say they are wrong. Have an open mind??? I am one of the most open minded people around. What you have going on here is not about having an open mind....it is about having a very narrow point of view that you want everyone to agree with.

Mother - posted on 03/03/2012

1,627

79

28

" I did explain it, perhaps not in my original questioning post during out back and forthness."



--exactly. Check and mate.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/03/2012

18,920

9

3002

****MOD WARNING****



Ok ladies, lets stop with the bickering. Please continue this debate without flaming, and if it continues this thread will be locked down.



~MOD Little Miss~

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

Mother B. I did explain it, perhaps not in my original questioning post during out back and forthness. I did however, clear it up. Didn't I?



Grow up. WTF is that suppose to mean. I asked you a question and I defined it two posts later. Maybe you need to get better at definitions and stop assuming what people are saying... ;)



However, in actuality it doesn't matter when the "birth" occurs. I asked you a plain and simple to understand question.

Which brings us to the topic at hand. If you don't know your baby is sick before birth, is after-birth abortion really that absurd? To those that agree with abortion....



You came back with Absolutely it is. If you read all the literature 90% of abortions are performed in the first 12-13 weeks. AND that even if it is legal to have it performed you'd be hard pressed finding someone to do it.



I asked you a simple question but you felt that your reply would justify it. WRONG.



If one mother is lucky enough to find out her baby has a servere illness in utero, she gets to abort, according to how you feel. I want to know how that is different for the mother that was not so lucky and all tests were inconclusive. She winds up delivering (whether full term or not) a very sick child, that will not live a substantial life. Why is she stuck, when the other is scott free? Oh, is your answer now that you only support those choices within the 1st 12 weeks? Sorry to tell you but more often than not prenatal testing does not come back conclusive until the 2nd trimester... Just because abortion occurs more often before 12 weeks does NOT mean it was because the baby was severly ill. Actually highly unlikely, they would know such a thing yet, unless it was a known genetic disorder....



Perhaps you need to grow up and learn to answer a question appropriately, rather than try to escape it with utter crap.

Mrs. - posted on 03/03/2012

1,767

6

30

Don't assume I'm not educated on your viewpoint...it is actually an uneducated thing to assume that because I disagree with you on that viewpoint that I am not educated on the subject.



I get your points, I've heard them, I've read the article, I don't see how it is any different than the same old, same old. I see no difference.



If you want to truly "understand how pro-abortion and pro-choice people", a good start is not assuming that because someone doesn't come off with the same conclusions as you from reading the articles, that they are uneducated about your own. They might read that as being talked down too and it might, just might, lead them to be even less open to anything you have to say because they figure you could be a bit of a blowhard just stirring up trouble to prove a point.



However, if the only way for me to participate in "your" thread is to be without bias or opinion...or agree with your opinion (and therefore be educated) - then it might not be the debate for me.



You say:



"I do wonder though, how these groups feel in regards to a healthy newborn being aborted, since it is no different than a foetus being aborted for the exact same reasons."



The last part of that sentence is an opinion...even though you say it is no different...doesn't mean other people think of it that way. So, if you want to know how a pro-choice person thinks, that is a good starting point.



"By science, a human is when they have a heart beat. An embryo has a heart beat at 21 days in utero. I can't see how anyone can dispute that."



If you'd like to understand the pro-choice thinking on your last assertion....many, many, many people have disputed that a lot better than my "uneducated" ass can. Just because you feel that is not disputable after the, what I assume is, extensive education you have on the subject (otherwise why would you be involved in this post..it is only for people who have extensively read all the information out there and are completely unbias), doesn't mean that others haven't come to a different conclusion.



"Now, for when people "feel" it becomes a baby, yeah, everyone has their twisted opinion on that. A heart beat is life and a baby is a term to define a small human being.... just sayin..."



"twisted opinion"...yeah, that sounds like it comes from an unbiased and open place. A lot of learning and meditating on all sides of the issue must have produced that point. Just sayin'.



Thanks anyhow.....;) ;) ;)

Mother - posted on 03/03/2012

1,627

79

28

"However, if you are not going to read the links and educate yourself on where I am coming from than it is a waste of your time and mine."



--*shoots the high horse* There....maybe now we can speak at the same level.

Mother - posted on 03/03/2012

1,627

79

28

Generally?? I didn't know I was generalizing. Sorry to have confused you. Nope, I know lots of mother's that had their babies BEFORE full term. Most were at 29-33 weeks but I am giving you an example that COULD happen and was wondering your take on it. You obviously do not want to have an open mind and think of what can and does happen, rather you feel it best to go with generalizations... OK, fair enough."



-- Grow up MeMe. If you mean something different then be SPECIFIC. If you meant 33 weeks...say 33 weeks and get someone's take on it. If you mean 20 weeks....Say that and then get their take on THAT. There are a million different scenarios that COULD come from that example. Don't wait for someone to assume you meant full term and then cut up what they say. Say what you mean. Have an open mind??? I am one of the most open minded people around. What you have going on here is not about having an open mind....it is about having a very narrow point of view that you want everyone to agree with.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

Actually that is not true Rebecca.



I am a pro-lifer BUT I do feel in certain circumstances abortion is necessary. If the mother is going to die from continuing the pregnancy, yes, that is a given. She should be able to terminate. I have also veered towards those foetus and newborns that have been proven to have severe (not DS or limb loss or something they can live long, substantial lives), really severe illnesses is also "just" cause. See that is because I am pro-life! I want everyone to have the chance to live a somewhat good and happy life. So, if a mother is going to die, well that's not a very good life now is it? If a baby is going to be born with an illness that would leave them unable to think, breathe, eat and would die in early years of life, then that is no life either. Abortion is acceptable in these rare but terrifying instances, IMO.



No glee, Rebecca. Your senses are way off. I am simply trying to understand how pro-abortion and pro-choice people view the very topic I have come to gain a much more indepth understanding of.



I do wonder though, how these groups feel in regards to a healthy newborn being aborted, since it is no different than a foetus being aborted for the exact same reasons.



However, if you are not going to read the links and educate yourself on where I am coming from than it is a waste of your time and mine. Since that was the main point here, to read and learn from an unbiased approach. I know I did and it helped me slightly reform my view.



Thanks anyhow.... ;)



ETA: By science, a human is when they have a heart beat. An embryo has a heart beat at 21 days in utero. I can't see how anyone can dispute that. I know I surely cannot. Now, for when people "feel" it becomes a baby, yeah, everyone has their twisted opinion on that. A heart beat is life and a baby is a term to define a small human being.... just sayin...

Mrs. - posted on 03/03/2012

1,767

6

30

Yeah, I think the article has become, I'm speaking of the several posts here, a platform to imply (which is a pretty common tactic by the anti-abortion folks) that anyone who thinks a later abortion is a woman's choice, that those views are on par with murdering babies.



It is the same old argument about when life begins and when it doesn't. People think differently about when a baby, is a baby and when a fetus becomes a human being.



I think you are absolutely entitled to think abortion is murder and akin to taking out a full term baby a week before birth and cutting it up. I disagree, I'm entitled to think that too. What I don't dig is someone expressing the belief that the right to make a choice about my body/others body's is second to their belief that it is wrong. If it is wrong for you...fine, don't do it...even if your baby has chromosome issues like my friends baby and wouldn't have lived outside of the womb very long (and if the baby did it would have been in a horrible amount of pain) — that is your choice, that you made.



What's more odd is that I sense a bit of glee from the OP that this article is a new trump card in the anti-abortion argument. I see no difference between this article and the same old arguments of when a fetus is a person and when it is not. It just has more of the nasty baby killer edge to it when used in a certain way to support certain arguments.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

Generally?? I didn't know I was generalizing. Sorry to have confused you. Nope, I know lots of mother's that had their babies BEFORE full term. Most were at 29-33 weeks but I am giving you an example that COULD happen and was wondering your take on it. You obviously do not want to have an open mind and think of what can and does happen, rather you feel it best to go with generalizations... OK, fair enough.

Mother - posted on 03/03/2012

1,627

79

28

OMG....let's argue semantics for awhile.



Generally, if a woman gives birth to her baby...it is because it has gone to term or there has been complications and the baby was born early. So, in your post



"So there ya go, abortion is legal at anytime for any reason in Canada. Which brings us to the topic at hand. If you don't know your baby is sick before birth, is after-birth abortion really that absurd? To those that agree with abortion....



eta: If it is, then why? What is the difference? Why is it OK 5 days before birth but not directly after birth?" -- So again....yes it is absurd.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

OK, it is absurd. To me that is hyprocritcal. To say it is OK to abort a sick fetus but once it is born you "must" keep and live with the sick newborn.... even though all prenatal testing missed it. Gotcha.. ;)



Remember I did not say "Full Term", I said birth. Again, that can happen any time, not only at full term... One mother may abort at 25 weeks because testing has proven conclusive, I see you are OK with that. However, the next mother that goes into labour and has just as sick if not sicker a baby, at 25 weeks, must live with it... hmmmm I see.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

Here is my response to you on that. No, you were not going by my example. You were assuming I meant birth as due date or full term (as in 38-40 weeks). You are incorrect. A birth does not mean "full term" as we know it Mother B. It means "birth" and that can happen at any time.



Not 5 mins Mother B. 5 days, sometimes you may find out late there is an illness and sometimes you don't know when you will deliver... A due date means nothing but opinionated guesses by measurements of last period and growth, it does not mean you know for sure. Someone may find out their baby has an illness and abort (at 26 weeks), another may have the baby (at 26 weeks) and find out... What is the difference????



ETA: I was simply throwing a hypothetical scenario of 5 days. Simply because 5 days before birth does not mean 5 days before their estimated due date. Now does it... ;)

Mother - posted on 03/03/2012

1,627

79

28

MeMe....you used the example 5 days before birth...that is pretty much a full term baby. I'm just going by YOUR example. Twenty weeks is completely different from a full term [minus five days] baby.



And I did answer you...the notion of an after birth abortion is absurd.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

Mother B. I did not say full term anywhere in my comments. So, I take it you are unwilling to answer my question. That's OK... ;)

Mother - posted on 03/03/2012

1,627

79

28

There is a huge difference from 20-26 weeks to a full term baby.



"http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/22-Late-term-Abortions.PDF

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

Not 5 mins Mother B. 5 days, sometimes you may find out late there is an illness and sometimes you don't know when you will deliver... A due date means nothing but opinionated guesses by measurements of last period and growth, it does not mean you know for sure. Someone may find out their baby has an illness and abort (at 26 weeks), another may have the baby (at 26 weeks) and find out... What is the difference????



ETA: I was simply throwing a hypothetical scenario of 5 days. Simply because 5 days before birth does not mean 5 days before their estimated due date. Now does it... ;)

Mother - posted on 03/03/2012

1,627

79

28

Ah, again you are not listening. didn't I just ask....who is asking for an abortion 5 minutes before birth?? Twenty weeks is NOT 5 minutes before birth.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

Ah, again you are not listening. Didn't I just say they do it here if there is an illness detected at 20 weeks? Which, btw would take until closer to 23-25weeks to have it performed... It was not hard for me to find them. They called me. I walked in to hospital and they gave me the choice. Now, how is that hard?

Mother - posted on 03/03/2012

1,627

79

28

"Why is it OK 5 days before birth but not directly after birth?" -- who is asking for an abortion 5 minutes before birth??

Mother - posted on 03/03/2012

1,627

79

28

Absolutely it is. If you read all the literature 90% of abortions are performed in the first 12-13 weeks. AND that even if it is legal to have it performed you'd be hard pressed finding someone to do it.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

So there ya go, abortion is legal at anytime for any reason in Canada. Which brings us to the topic at hand. If you don't know your baby is sick before birth, is after-birth abortion really that absurd? To those that agree with abortion....



eta: If it is, then why? What is the difference? Why is it OK 5 days before birth but not directly after birth?

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

Mother B. It is not hard to find a physician if there is an illness even as common as DS. They do it here at the IWK, children's hospital, this is where I had to go for my high risk pregnancy and where I received the "talk" at 20 weeks....

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

Dilation and Curettage (D and C)



This is similar to a suction procedure except a curette, a loop-shaped steel knife is inserted into the uterus. The baby and placenta are cut into pieces and scraped out into a basin. Bleeding is usually very heavy with this method.




Is a method. This is the method I had to have when I miscarried during my 2nd pregnancy. However, I was 10 weeks. Although, I miscarried for 6 months! They first gave me pills that make your uterus contract, they figured that took care of the issue. They were WRONG. I began to hemorrhage for the next 6 months. When I say hemorrhage, I mean just that. My body thought there was a fetus, so it would rush all the blood to my uterus to feed it. During my cycle my body would say "No, this is not a living fetus (embryo)" and would rush all the blood out at once and continually for weeks after. Most often I was bleeding severly for weeks on end, with gushes 5 - 8 times a day, I could not go to work, I could not go anywhere. A pad or tampon would not help, it was forceful and ended with it coming out of my pant leg to the ground and all through my pants.



Finally they listened to me and I was able to prove it while in emerge. I was given a D&C 6 months after the initial miscarriage, since they had to scrape my uterus to rid the remaining tissues. Which is what they have to do in certain cases of later term pregnancies. SICK!

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

BTW - I was given the choice at 20 weeks for an amniocentesis to give a more accurate account on whether my son had DS. It was then explained that if I accepted the test and it came back conclusive, I could then decide for ending the pregnancy. If I had furthered my choice and it was conclusive, the abortion would not have been within the same day. It would have been done quickly but more like within the next couple of weeks. I guarentee, if I was given that choice, many are. DS is not an uncommon illness. There were many 20 week or so pregnant woman waiting for their "talk" when I was there. No, not all of them were probably inflicted with a DS concern but there were concerns about an illness for each of those fetus within. I don't know how many took further course of action but they were all given the same choices as I. This was in a high risk pregnancy clinic, so they were all there for the purpose as I was. So, it is not as uncommon as one may think.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

That's right Little Miss but what about at 25 weeks? You cannot vacuum those fetus out. They have to be severed and taken out in pieces.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

Well a baby can live after 22 weeks as a fetus. There is a 50% chance of them living after 25 weeks. So, late-term abortion including once a fetus is able to survive outside the womb. Many places allow for abortion until the last day of the 2nd trimester. This is 26 weeks. This includes Canada and US, yes it is rare. However, it is legal and requires no specific reason for ending the foetuses life, it can be simply, for demand, alone. Now that to me is "sick" in itself. Although, for the interest of this philosophical idea, why is late-term abortion any different, for what ever reason, any different?



http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02...



You are also correct that 3rd term abortions are very rare. They are only considered when there is a serious health implication of either the baby or mother. So, how do you feel in that situation for those babies that were not diagnosed inutero? If you agree these babies should be able to be aborted late in the pregnancy due to serious reasoning, then how is infanticide any different?



Third Trimester Abortions

Despite the claims of some anti-abortion activists, women have access to abortion in the third trimester only in extreme circumstances. Fewer than 2% of abortions are provided at 21 weeks or after, and they are extremely rare after 26 weeks of pregnancy. Very few abortions are provided in the third trimester, and they are generally limited to cases of severe fetal abnormalities or situations when the life or health of the pregnant woman is seriously threatened.




I am just interested in how other's that take the time to understand what is being said, feel or interpret such an idea.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/03/2012

18,920

9

3002

I have never heard of an abortion being done by injecting drugs or hormones. I have known several people to receive them, and it has always been through the vagina with a vacuum like thing.

Mother - posted on 03/03/2012

1,627

79

28

I guess the whole debate would depend on what one considers late term abortions. Considering you can't have an abortion performed past 20 weeks I'm not sure how you can argue that an abortion equates infanticide. Have you had an abortion?? Because most abortions occur around 12-13 weeks. Yes there are several ways for an abortion to be performed but it mostly is terminated by injecting drugs or hormones and then is removed.



some abortions can be performed up to 25 weeks but you'd be hard pressed finding someone to do such a thing unless the Mother was in danger.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

Mother B.



Late-term abortion and infanticide shortly after birth, how are they different? The BIG difference is late term abortion chops the fetus up, infanticide does it with injection (there is no pain, NONE).. So, what is the difference and why is the article sick? Many people believe in abortion, including late-term. So, how is post-abortion different?? Many will argue, what about those newborn's born with a seriously death defying illness. You know, those that believe it is OK to abort these foetuses while inutero because of the illness. Well not always is it found until after-birth. Then what?



If someone supports late-term abortion, then infanticide is absolutely no different. The fetus is no different a human being 5 or 14 days before birth as it is 5 mins after birth. If you feel it is, please indulge on your opinion.



Here is a paper on both and how they are so very closely related:



http://www.minerva.mic.ul.ie//vol2/bh.ht...



ETA: Again I am against any term abortion, except in very serious situations that will cause death to the mother... I just am able to understand where this philosophical arguement is coming from. The link I just provided is very thorough and gives positions from both sides of the coin...

Mother - posted on 03/03/2012

1,627

79

28

Abortion and infanticide are two very different things. I think it is a sick article.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms