Retroactive Abortions: Just Say Yes

[RedSkunk]

RETROACTIVE ABORTION
Jim Kouri
March 6, 2006

"While Americans continue to struggle with the moral and legal issues surrounding partial-birth abortion, the Europeans have moved on to legalizing euthanasia for fully born children. Call it retroactive-abortion.

Child euthanasia is still illegal in Holland and doctors are terrified of being prosecuted, but there is a growing number of physicians and poltician who are advocating legalizing doctor-assisted euthanasia for babies and very young children.

Each year in Holland at least 15 seriously ill babies, most of them with chromosomal abnormalities, are helped to die by doctors acting with the parents’ consent. But only a fraction of those cases are reported to the authorities because of the doctors’ fears of being charged with murder. Things are about to change, however, making it much easier for parents and doctors to end the suffering of an infant, according to news stories circulating in Western Europe.

A committee was set up in Holland to regulate the practice of child euthanasia and will begin operating in the next few weeks, effectively making Holland -- where adult euthanasia is legal -- the first nation on the planet to allow “baby euthanasia” as well. This development has enraged opponents of euthanasia who warn of a “slippery slope” leading to abuses by doctors and parents, who will be making decisions for individuals incapable of expressing their own preferences and desires."

I believe that infant euthanasia, or "retroactive abortions" as I like to call them, are wonderful things, and ought to be legal in the US. This is a crucial time in the infant's life, and quite likely the last time we're able to correct a mistake. At a very early age, your typical infant is exhibiting no real personality, and more than likely does not have any number of things which typically differentiate humans from animals (or vegetables), including a sense of self and a sense of time and space. For this reason, it is moral and righteous. And for the good of our nation, we must allow these things to happen.

[BigBlueBalls]

Ok all I have to say is WTF does this have to do with the guy in stars-and-stripes bikini underwear?

[RedSkunk]

At 4/3/06 11:54 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote: Ok all I have to say is WTF does this have to do with the guy in stars-and-stripes bikini underwear?

He's a red-blooded American patriot who supports the cause.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 4/3/06 11:54 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote: Ok all I have to say is WTF does this have to do with the guy in stars-and-stripes bikini underwear?

I like how he leaves it open to interpretation, like a true artist. It reminds me of eugenics and Nazism.

[JMHX]

If there's one thing RedSkunk enjoys, it's buff men in thongs.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/3/06 11:57 PM, JMHX wrote: If there's one thing RedSkunk enjoys, it's buff men in thongs.

You bet yr britches. But back on-topic..

[RedSkunk]

Man, I just realized that my source was plagiarizing left and right. Fucking cops. Anyways, here's a few better links for the topic:
http://www.timesonli..2089-2069963,00.html

http://www.lifesite...06/mar/06030601.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621588/
http://news.bbc.co.u..d/europe/4093965.stm

Now get off the topic of the dude. I know it's exciting you fellows, but there are more important topics at hand!

[MoralLibertarian]

The whole abortion debate has really devolved.

It used to be, "What do you think of abortion?" And we'd say, "It's bad. Life is life, and we shouldn't be the ones taking it or destroying it when it is an innocent child."

Then came partial birth abortion. "What do you think about partial birth abortion?" And we'd say, "Well, at the very least, if a woman wants to choose to terminate her pregnancy, at least have her choose to do so in the first trimester!"

Now comes retro-active abortion. "What do you think of retroactive abortion?" And we say, "Is this some kind of sick joke?"

Pity.

[RedSkunk]

I think you mean evolve. That'd make more sense, at least. From the general to the specific. Although I don't know if what you said is even necessarily true.

[BigBlueBalls]

No I don't think there should be abortions like this. Too much potential for abuse. After a child is born, the parents should have two choices. Either keep the child or give it up for adoption. If they can't handle the responsiblity, then give it to someone that will. Otherwise, there's no need for killing a child once it's born. I'm all for regular abortions, but the moment it is born, then it has the legality of a citizen.

At 4/4/06 12:04 AM, red_skunk wrote: Now get off the topic of the dude. I know it's exciting you fellows, but there are more important topics at hand!

It's not exciting, it's distracting from the topic.

Here, this is better...

[fli]

*OMG-- right clicky... and SAVED*

There's too things that get me hard: aborted fetuses and hairy men in American bikini wear.

Bravo skunkypoo--

But no seriously,
I can see that there are circumstances where infantcide maybe necessary-- especially if one is talking about a baby with a terminal disease who will grow up with a lot of physical pain.

There needs to be a criteria of course. Some questions we need to ask:
1.) Is this disease terminal?
2.) Does this disease cause a lot of physical pain?
3.) Can this disease be managed?

Other questions could be factors such as:
1.) Are the parents able to provide the necessities for the child?
2.) Could the baby be given up for adoption?
3.) Will the child have dignity?

I mean-- lets face it. Opponents for infantcidal euthanasia will say, "OMG-- murder, blah, blah, blah-- Not moral." Proponents for it will say, "OMG-- you're letting a human being suffer purposely? Blah, blah, blah--"

Anyways,
I'm for infantcide if it has a strict guideline. The most important deciding factor has to deal with management of physical pain and dignity.

[WolvenBear]

This debate is ridiculous.

At 4/4/06 03:16 AM, fli wrote: But no seriously,
I can see that there are circumstances where infantcide maybe necessary--

Oh, what a beautiful start.

There needs to be a criteria of course. Some questions we need to ask:
1.) Is this disease terminal?
2.) Does this disease cause a lot of physical pain?
3.) Can this disease be managed?

I agree with 1. 2 is iffy. And 3 is the most important. Can the child survive. And will there be anything other than constant horrible pain. If the answer to both of those is yes, than the parents have no right to kill the baby.

Other questions could be factors such as:
1.) Are the parents able to provide the necessities for the child?

Irrelevant.

2.) Could the baby be given up for adoption?

Always can be.

3.) Will the child have dignity?

Dignity is subjective.

The only real argument for abortion is that it was the mother's body, the mother's choice. Now that it's outside of her, that argument is gone. If we can just say "hey it hurt my pocketbook, we'll have to allow abortion up to the 60th trimester, or whenever you get the hell out of the house.

I mean-- lets face it. Opponents for infantcidal euthanasia will say, "OMG-- murder, blah, blah, blah-- Not moral." Proponents for it will say, "OMG-- you're letting a human being suffer purposely? Blah, blah, blah--"

Yea, gotta go with the opponents on this one.

Anyways,
I'm for infantcide if it has a strict guideline. The most important deciding factor has to deal with management of physical pain and dignity.

You know, the original argument against abortion was simple. "You are degrading the value of human life". And the proponents would always laugh and say it was a stupid worry. Now we're killing infants. And the opponents are saying "see, see, told you so", to which the proponents are saying "psht, who cares, it's STILL not a person, cause we say so. Doesn't have a personality yet."

[Gunter45]

Why say no when it feels so good to say yes?

[lapis]

Well, it's still not technically legal. A child doctor with The University of Groningen, Verhagen, is pleading for guidelines under which doctors who assist in child euthanasia would not be prosecuted. I think it has been accepted by the district attorney in Groningen but it's not official government policy yet, according to nu.nl and biopolitiek.nl (an online translator may be required). I personally don't know if this will pass, the biggest party in the current coalition is the Christian-Democratic party and I assume they have some objections, but the minister of Health is with the liberals so he could enforce it.

But for now it says: "terwijl de euthanasiewet niet geldt voor pasgeborenen", meaning that the euthanasia law doesn't apply to children who were just born. This article was posted today, so I think it's still pretty accurate.

However, in 22 cases in the last 7 years the Government decided not to prosecute doctors who were "guilty" of assisting child euthanasia if the death of the child was imminent, inevitable and the child was suffering needlessly, and if the parents agreed. The decision would have to be confirmed by another doctor and the used medication should have been appropriate. So I wouldn't call this "abortion", which in most cases would end the potential life of a child who has very good odds of surviving. The Vatican is worried about the "slippery-slope", but the life of the child is not to be terminated if there's any doubt about his chances of survival and medical science has evolved to a point where in some cases it is certain that the child will only suffer physical pain and die within months. I'm didn't attend medical school and I don't know the exact ins and outs of the Groningen Protocol, but I highly doubt it would allow for doctors to randomly pull plugs.

The thing that pissed me off however was this:
"But the Dutch aren't turning their backs on abortion. A new proposal being bandied in Holland is mandatory abortion of so-called "unwanted children." The left-wing in The Netherlands are intensifying the discussion regarding this latest progressive construct. The most rabid advocate is Marianne van den Anker, who is the head of Rotterdam's health department. "

First off, Marianne van der Anker is a member of the local party Leefbaar Rotterdam which is about as right-wing as one can get, so I fail to see what "the left-wing" has to do with this. Second of all, the author of the article is trying to make it look like there was any support for this utterly retarted proposal. Every other party in the Tweede Kamer, comparable to the House of Commons in the UK, used words ranging from abhorrent to idiotic when referring to this gem of a proposal so I wouldn't worry about this ever passing.

At 4/4/06 03:16 AM, fli wrote: Other questions could be factors such as:
1.) Are the parents able to provide the necessities for the child?
2.) Could the baby be given up for adoption?
3.) Will the child have dignity?

Heh, I'm sorry, but no. These are not really important. If the death of the child is imminent and inevitable (I mean the death being imminent is inevitable, death is always inevitable at some point in time), which is a necessary condition for not prosecuting doctors who assist in child euthanasia, then:

1) Parents will always be able to provide for the necessities of a corpse.
2) Corpses can not be given up for adoption.
3) Corpses don't care for dignity.

If the conditions you listed aren't met, but the death of the child is not imminent and inevitable, then a child should never be allowed to die. In an extreme situation the State or a charitable organisation should take care of it.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/4/06 04:14 AM, Gunter45 wrote: Why say no when it feels so good to say yes?

Exactly!

[fli]

At 4/4/06 04:08 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Oh, what a beautiful start.

A beautiful start to skunk's beautiful ending...

I agree with 1. 2 is iffy. And 3 is the most important. Can the child survive. And will there be anything other than constant horrible pain. If the answer to both of those is yes, than the parents have no right to kill the baby.

Two is extremly important. What kind of life can people live if they can't manage their physical pain? Not a good one. Of course the quality of life is an important issue. People say that it's immoral to kill a baby, but is letting a baby grow up with physical pain anymore moral? Especially if we're talking about terminal diseases?

This is not about parental rights and etcetra--
It's not about what is moral and immoral.

While some people believe that the people who support abortion and euthansia are cold hearted and etcetra, it's much more complicated than that. Many of these people are thinking about the fetus or child.

Personally, I would not want my child to suffer a type of pain that cannot be managed. If there isn't neither dignity nor hope. That is much more cruel than the killing itself.

Other questions could be factors such as:
1.) Are the parents able to provide the necessities for the child?

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant? I'm not talking about money or anything-- but obligation to children. If people don't have money to buy the medicine or whatever to manage their child's pain-- or find resources to help you....

That's just sad.

The only real argument for abortion is that it was the mother's body, the mother's choice. Now that it's outside of her, that argument is gone. If we can just say "hey it hurt my pocketbook, we'll have to allow abortion up to the 60th trimester, or whenever you get the hell out of the house.

I'm not talking about pocketbooks-- but the welfare and quality of life of children. And there are no "onlys" in any argument. Speaking in "onlys" means one is unwilling to fully examine the issue.

Hard as this may sound, parents are thinking about their children's well being even if the decision is the life or death type.

Plus-- we're not talking about abortion. It's about Euthansia... I don't know why skunk would use "retroactive abortion" because I could kill a 65 year old man and that still would be a "retroactive abortion."

I for one wouldn't want my child, or anyone who I loved, to suffer horribly. If my mother was in a Schivo type of situation-- it would be less cruel to release her from earth than to let her suffer.

I mean-- lets face it. Opponents for infantcidal euthanasia will say, "OMG-- murder, blah, blah, blah-- Not moral." Proponents for it will say, "OMG-- you're letting a human being suffer purposely? Blah, blah, blah--"

Yea, gotta go with the opponents on this one.

Anyways,
I'm for infantcide if it has a strict guideline. The most important deciding factor has to deal with management of physical pain and dignity.

You know, the original argument against abortion was simple. "You are degrading the value of human life". And the proponents would always laugh and say it was a stupid worry. Now we're killing infants. And the opponents are saying "see, see, told you so", to which the proponents are saying "psht, who cares, it's STILL not a person, cause we say so. Doesn't have a personality yet."

I haven't seen any argument saying an infant isn't a person? Not on this thread or elsewhere.

It's a much more complex issue.
Some people think that euthansia is better than to allow a person to suffer.

And personally-- I would chose suicide or euthansia if 1.) whatever I have is terminal, and 2.) I can't have neither pain management nor dignity.

[Politics]

At 4/4/06 04:14 AM, Gunter45 wrote: Why say no when it feels so good to say yes?

Is that your #1 pickup line?

But in all seriousness; ending a kid's life prematurely, after it has fully devoloped, is beyond the parent's right to do so. In the most extreme situation, the newborn should be treated as any other human patient would be - to become a vegitable until, by the word of the parents (under power of attorney), decide to "pull the plug." Actually assisting the death could be interpreted as murder, as it is stifling an existing life, regardless of motivations. I mean; it's all fine and dandy and should be within legality to stop a fetus from devoloping a certain humanity, as defined as a multicellular creater capable of carrying out thought, and of the human species. Anything further would require debate over the importance of anti-homocide laws.

[Penal-Disturbance]

Did any of the "MoralLibertians" in this thread READ what it was about? It's about Euthanasias, not Abortions. Retroactive Abortions are just a pet name to take the piss out of reactionary idiots like you who'll no doubt bitch about that notion instead of reading what it's about.

[Demosthenez]

I think its fucked up but Im not going to judge because I have not yet (and hopefully wont) been/be in that position.

I guess if the parents agree with it and the doctors have a sorta vague criteria of when it is ok, then go with it. I cant imagine ever wanting to kill my child, but then again, I havent had a kid missing part of their skull, or missing some organs or some other shit like that that would doom them to death and pain.

[DasModel]

Yeah this is not abortion. Abortion means like "Oh my God it's almost a person, quick, abort abort!" (Past a certain point, you can't call it a collection of cells, no matter what you feel about developed personalities or other non-scientific, philosophical questions) This is euthenasia, and it should absolutely, 100% only happen if the baby is seriously going to suffer chronic pain for the rest of its life or die very soon.

Retroactive abortion, very very big no no.

[Begoner]

I think there should be retroactive abortions even a baby doesn't have a disease as long as both the parents consent or there is only one living parent. But this is definitely a step in the right direction -- I'm all for it.

[DasModel]

At 4/4/06 03:34 PM, Begoner wrote: I think there should be retroactive abortions even a baby doesn't have a disease as long as both the parents consent or there is only one living parent. But this is definitely a step in the right direction -- I'm all for it.

Dude, that's just fucked up. Please tell me you are joking, or being swayed by the hairy man in the bikini bottom, not the argument.

[lapis]

At 4/4/06 03:40 PM, DasModel wrote: or being swayed by the hairy man in the bikini bottom, not the argument.

I know I am. If that guy ran for president with his only proposal being a complete and industrialised extermination of all the world's women then I'd still vote for him.

[DasModel]

"Children are a perpetual, self-renewing underclass, helpless to escape from the decisions of adults until they become adults themselves." -Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game

[MortifiedPenguins]

Yeah because seriously these children have to claim to life at all.

Who are we to decide someone's Life and Fate.

[Begoner]

Dude, that's just fucked up. Please tell me you are joking, or being swayed by the hairy man in the bikini bottom, not the argument.

I'm not being swayed by the argument nor the guy in the bikini bottom (although he is hawt). No, I believe that parents are the ones who have to watch over their children for over a decade, and they should have ample time to decide whether they made a mistake. If they feel that cannot raise a child, they can painlessly kill it, and the same end result would be achieved as if they had never had sex at all. I don't see what's so morally wrong about it. If the parents cannot or don't want to support the child, they can do the equivalent of turning back the clock and not having sex -- euthanizing the baby. No harm, no foul.

[HighlyIllogical]

Personally, I'm pretty certain that chromosomal disorders (particularly most monosomies and trisomies, with, generally, the exception of trisomy 21/Down Syndrome) are often deadly, and if not painful. Retroactive abortions might not be the BEST thing, but in cases like these, late term (but retroactive only if the baby is in a lot of pain) abortions are ok.

[Penal-Disturbance]

At 4/4/06 04:05 PM, Begoner wrote:

Dude, that's just fucked up. Please tell me you are joking, or being swayed by the hairy man in the bikini bottom, not the argument.

I'm not being swayed by the argument nor the guy in the bikini bottom (although he is hawt). No, I believe that parents are the ones who have to watch over their children for over a decade, and they should have ample time to decide whether they made a mistake. If they feel that cannot raise a child, they can painlessly kill it, and the same end result would be achieved as if they had never had sex at all. I don't see what's so morally wrong about it. If the parents cannot or don't want to support the child, they can do the equivalent of turning back the clock and not having sex -- euthanizing the baby. No harm, no foul.

That's taking it way too far, that'd ridiculous. You can't just kill children because you made a mistake. This is only for babies who won't stand much of a chance to have a life, anyway.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 4/4/06 04:09 PM, mofomojo wrote: Once more, my solution is to illegalize all abortions and this shit as well.

Just give the unwanted babies to gay couples who can't have kids. Or just straight couples who can't have kids as well.

Either way, if we allow gays to adopt, we're creating a whole new market for adoption. This is good; very good.

Problems:

A. Not enough gay people
B. What about cases where the baby would be born and die just after or soon after even with treatment?
C. What if the mother's life is in danger?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/4/06 04:08 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Personally, I'm pretty certain that chromosomal disorders (particularly most monosomies and trisomies, with, generally, the exception of trisomy 21/Down Syndrome) are often deadly, and if not painful. Retroactive abortions might not be the BEST thing, but in cases like these, late term (but retroactive only if the baby is in a lot of pain) abortions are ok.

But most Times you don't realize thier disorder till several months or even years into thier life.

Cistic Fibrosis(sp) for example may not show up till the first year or first 16 years.