Log In Sign Up

After Birth Abortions

Forum: Heated Debates


Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to [email protected].

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Like Tree17Likes
  • 1 Post By MindyRambo
  • 4 Post By Tammyjh
  • 3 Post By BittyBugsMama
  • 2 Post By K.A.T
  • 1 Post By plan4fate
  • 4 Post By Quantum_Leap
  • 2 Post By Frackel

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Heated Debates LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
February 29th, 2012, 08:38 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southwest USA
Posts: 1,917
Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After-Birth Abortions | TheBlaze.com

What do you think?

Reply With Quote
February 29th, 2012, 09:17 AM
Poncho06's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,080
I can't find much on this outside of pro-life propaganda sites so I'm venturing to guess this is not a widely accepted view among ethicists. Especially considering most people hinge their views on abortion choice upon fetal viability vs. fetal consciousness.

I have no issue with the thoughts being presented. This is how boundaries are set with ANY ethical issues. It's naive to believe that all people reside in the middle and there needs to be POV's and discussion on either extreme. Eugenics is not a new topic and has been debated for centuries.

Reply With Quote
February 29th, 2012, 10:13 AM
magz88's Avatar First Time Mum
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,411
What a fantastic idea.

Here is another related article:

Euthanasia for Babies? - New York Times

Last edited by magz88; February 29th, 2012 at 10:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
February 29th, 2012, 12:45 PM
MindyRambo's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 841
I totally get the point they are trying to make, but I still think it's ridiculous.

Maybe if I agreed with abortion beyond the 1st trimester (not much further than that) I would have to agree, because there isn't much difference in aborting a 38 week fetus, and "euthanizing" a newborn, but since I don't, I think it's absurd.

Does anyone know if the laws vary from state to state as to how many weeks you can be before they will refuse an abortion?
birdblue likes this.

You think the only people who are people, are the people who look and think like you, but if you walk the footsteps of stranger, you'll learn things you knew... you never knew.
Reply With Quote
February 29th, 2012, 01:57 PM
Tammyjh's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North
Posts: 7,824
Originally Posted by MindyRambo View Post
I totally get the point they are trying to make, but I still think it's ridiculous.

Maybe if I agreed with abortion beyond the 1st trimester (not much further than that) I would have to agree, because there isn't much difference in aborting a 38 week fetus, and "euthanizing" a newborn, but since I don't, I think it's absurd.

Does anyone know if the laws vary from state to state as to how many weeks you can be before they will refuse an abortion?
I'm not sure on the laws state to state either.

I consider myself pro choice but only up until the point of viability. Its my belief that if baby can survive outside of the womb, a woman should not have an abortion except in extreme situations where mom's life hangs in the balance or if the baby has a condition that is incompatible with life. So, I guess I don't have to give my stance on killing a newborn. While I agree with Jaime that I don't have a problem with people having the discussion, for me, its a disgusting thought. Whats next, discussing whether it should be acceptable to kill your 6 month old? Your 2 year old?
Tammy, Mom to
Abby (19), Kacie (13), Chase (11), & Jacob (7)

"...They're supposed to make you miserable! That's why they're family!" ~ Bobby ~ Supernatural
Reply With Quote
February 29th, 2012, 02:26 PM
Repti.Mom's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 15,641
Lets just start keeping a bucket of water in each hospital room like they do in China. Who knows it might be a "burden on the family" here to have a girl vs having a boy just like there.

Reply With Quote
February 29th, 2012, 05:13 PM
angelsailor288's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingston, NY
Posts: 5,057
Are you kidding me??

Thank you jaidynsmum for my siggy!

Reply With Quote
February 29th, 2012, 05:57 PM
BittyBugsMama's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,317
After birth abortion is a fancy way of saying killing a newborn. And its disgusting.
Reply With Quote
February 29th, 2012, 06:40 PM
K.A.T's Avatar Enjoying her Sticky Bun
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 13,499
I'm with Tammy and Jaime on this one. I'm OK with discussing it. Maybe it being talked about can bring about that line that shouldn't be crossed. However, the thought of killing a newborn and then calling it an after birth abortion, disgust me beyond belief.

❤ Big Thanks to Vicki, trishosaurus, & Shortcake for the great siggies of my kids! ❤
Liz (36) Kev (35)
Tiana (16) Doni (14) Lil Kev (8) Ethan 7/23/12 Lil Roo 10/29/11

Reply With Quote
February 29th, 2012, 11:29 PM
plan4fate's Avatar I may bend, but not break
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 27,101
Send a message via MSN to plan4fate
It's ok to talk about... but I'd be freaking out if it was legal.

Like Mindy, my "accepting" of abortion stops at the end of the first trimester. After that I just can't see anything outside medical reason as something that would make an abortion "ok".

Abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And it woudln't be considered abortion by most definitions as it's past viability and the baby probably weighs more than 500g (lil more than a pound)
MindyRambo likes this.
1798 Days to Conceive our Miracle!
Baby Girl Due August 7th 2017!!

Reply With Quote
March 1st, 2012, 07:57 AM
Quantum_Leap's Avatar frequent flier
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle area, Washington
Posts: 9,756
Well, to be honest with you, I do think that the baby with that horrible skin condition described in that second article probably would have been better off if she had been euthanized at birth rather than allowed to die naturally at six months. As a mother, I couldn't possibly imagine watching my child go through that kind of needless agony day after day and not being able to explain to her why. I'd venture to say that many if not most adults with a condition that extreme would be seeking doctor-assisted suicide, and that the baby probably would have done the same had she been able to voice her preferences.

BUT, that's an exceptional situation. The idea that "after-birth" abortion could be made routinely available as an option, subject to no other limitations than the whims of the parents, is reprehensible. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, you'll acknowledge that the concept behind abortion is that only the mother is in charge of deciding whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. No one else can veto her decision. In the extraordinarily rare situation where an extreme medical condition might make euthanasia of an infant justifiable, I would think that it would need to be subject to the consent of a fairly large number of people, including the multiple doctors making the diagnosis. This is a monumental decision, and it's not something that only one person should be able to decide.

The argument that a newborn infant is merely a "potential person" because a person must be someone "who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value" is both (a) hogwash, and, (b) sickening. First of all, newborns absolutely do attribute value to their own existence. They may not be capable of conceptualizing or expressing this value linguistically, but they most definitely have preferences about what happens to them, and are equipped with any number of biological defense mechanisms that enable them to demand that these preferences be acknowledged rather than ignored. Crying, for starters, is their way of ensuring that they are both fed and kept in close physical proximity to their mothers (which, in turn, encourages the release of hormones that promote bonding and therefore ensure that they will be cared for over the long-term). Newborn infants do have an aim, and it's the aim that their DNA and the forces of millions of years of evolution have programmed them to have -- their aim is survival. What possible grounds do these authors have for saying that they don't? Can they somehow read the minds of infants, and discern that they want nothing out of life and therefore would not be bothered by not existing?

Moreover, decreeing that 'having an aim' is what makes someone a person is absolutely arbitrary and contrary to innate standards of human decency. Do the elderly cease to have the right to life at the point where they become addled with dementia are no longer capable of conceptualizing the value of their own existence? A newborn infant is no more a 'potential person' than someone with Alzheimer's is an 'expired person.' Personhood isn't something you have to earn. It's not something that can exist in varying degrees. You're a person by virtue of birth, and no one can take that status from you. Neither your thought processes, nor others' warped perceptions of them, have any bearing.

I truly hope that this article was meant to be satirical, a la "A Modest Proposal," and not intended as a serious suggestion. Otherwise, it seems that too many years spent in academia have caused these authors to lose their common sense. They seem to think that they can use wordsmithing and linguistic tricks to make things true that aren't.

Thank you to the SSMC makers for my beautiful siggies!

(x2)(x2)(October 2011)
Reply With Quote
March 1st, 2012, 12:39 PM
Undomesticated Housewife's Avatar Master(de)bater
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia
Posts: 1,622
I can't totally wrap my head around it, yet.
Reply With Quote
March 1st, 2012, 03:13 PM
AtomicMama's Avatar CopperBoom!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 14,754
They were discussing this on the radio this morning, but only in regards to group in New Zealand proposing it.

Personally, I can't get on board with it at all. Even if I agreed with abortion at any point, I can't fathom this concept, especially as an option to the parents. I also can't fathom going through labor (or serious surgery) and delivering a baby only to kill it.

In the medical exception Lynn mentioned, I definitely understand her reasoning. I too would have an incredibly difficult time watching my child suffer. However, even there I think my faith would stop me from agreeing with euthanasia. Miracles happen every day.
Amy: Wife to my Handsome Husband Mommy to my superhero, Max (3) and Luckiest Bonus Mama to Sammy (5)

Reply With Quote
March 1st, 2012, 08:55 PM
Frackel's Avatar DOh!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: In my house :p
Posts: 1,288
PP said it better than I could.

But I have to admit that even in the case of Sanne, the little baby with the skin disease, I would have a tremendous amount of not only difficulty, but even doubt, even thinking about what basically amounts to killing my child.

I do know what it's like to have a child with a life threatening illness. I do know what it's like to be told your child will not live. Not just that they might not, but that they will not live, and even be given a time frame. I know what it's like to be told that signing a DNR order, for my infant, "would be best for all". I know what it's like to be told your baby isn't a person, doesn't have a life, will never amount to anything, is probably not even really hurting because she doesn't know what's going on, and all kinds of other really crappy things to say to a parent. All while watching her suffer.

Not knowing what to do, where to go, what decisions to make, or not make....is not easy. But I don't believe they should be, ever. It should NOT be a no brainer. It should not need to be made into some kind of law, rule, or whatever, that makes the decision "easier" for anyone. I had doctors, nurses, specialists and professionals all telling me what "would be best". I don't know who they believed they were speaking for, but it most certainly wasn't my child, my family, or me. Maybe they were speaking for themselves. It would have been easier on them, to not have to treat her, I suppose. They definitely weren't making things easier by trying to make what they wanted me to do, sound like the best gift ever in the entire world with sprinkles, whipped cream and a cherry on top.

Experts don't know everything, is what I told myself when they told me "she won't make it". Miracles happen everyday. Medicines DO work. Treatments DO work. Surgeries save lives. Those are the sorts of things I preferred to think about. Not whether or not my child was really a person. There was no question, she's a person. She may be suffering, and her life may end up being short, but she's still a person. She still deserved a chance at life. People DO live with what she has, every single day. People live with even worse, and have productive lives, and families.

Next month my little "won't live" baby, turns 11. Most people would never know there is a darn thing wrong with her either. Other than she's really small. Most of her medical issues are internal.

I'm glad I didn't listen to them about what was "best". I'm glad I didn't listen to them about the quality of her life, or whether or not she actually had one. I'm glad when they got to be too much, someone helped me find people who didn't think like they did. Because that sort of attitude, that a life with suffering means one isn't a person or doesn't have a life at all....does not make what they are asking you to do, suggesting you do, etc... any different than what it really is. They are telling you that taking the life out of someone, allowing them to die, or intentionally causing them to die, is the better alternative.

You can't pretty that up, no matter what amount of justification you use. Even if the justification is valid, in someone's opinion. It's not a pretty thing, and people shouldn't try to make it sound humane in whatever manner they can. It's not supposed to be an easy decision. It SHOULD be hard, for all involved. It should be discussed, if it's going to be discussed at all, with all the seriousness and harshness it deserves. It shouldn't be given a slue of medical terminology, or any terminology, that makes it sound like something it's not.
plan4fate and AtomicMama like this.
Reply With Quote
April 14th, 2012, 10:21 AM
*Dayna*'s Avatar Aussie Mama
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,329
Why would you want your baby'aborted' after birth?

Why wouldn't you just have an abortion to begin with?
Nothing is better than being with your family. Finally reunited after 5 long months <3
Reply With Quote

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0