I am in shock! *upsetting content*

[pandacub]

I suppose simply because a feotus doesn't have conciousness. It isn't aware til its born. But when is the cut off point in the womb? Im in two minds about it. But the logical part of me thinks that.
Thats not to say I condone abortion, because I don't.. I certainly think of a pregnant woman carrying a baby as opposed to just a fetus and think it should have more rights, laws should be changed.
To be honest, I feel like Im diarespecting some women on here by discussing it.

 

[freckleonear]

Of course a baby in the womb has consciousness and awareness. Studies have shown that they can learn and remember melody contours in music and language.

Where there is a substantial risk of serious physical or mental handicap, abortions can be performed right up until birth. Biologically the only difference between a baby aborted at full term and a baby born at full term is that one has already started breathing. Professor John Harris (a pro-abortion bioethicist who is also pro-infanticide in certain circumstances) says:

People who think there is a difference between infanticide and late abortion have to ask the question: what has happened to the foetus in the time it takes to pass down the birth canal and into the world which changes its moral status? I don't think anything has happened in that time...I don't think it is plausible to think that there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal.

Ultimately, the logical reasoning that justifies abortion very easily justifies infanticide as there is nothing morally important about the moment of birth. Therefore you could either argue that because one is okay, the other must be okay, which is the extreme presented in this article, or at the opposite end of the scale you could argue that neither are okay.

 

[Eternal]

Shocking and sickening to think about, at whatever stage of life.

 

[indy and lara]

I think that sometimes these types of discussion do need to come up. I don't agree with it at all bit that doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned.

Would like to point out and gently remind everyone that there are many ladies using this site who have had to experience a TOP for medical reasons. It is a very sensitive issue.

 

[hb1]

I think it's more of a reverse abortion provocation?

Also - this is just philosophical debate - they are debating at which point a human becomes a human - they are suggesting that one could argue that a newborn is not a human yet - as current law decrees a gesttional age for abortion -mbut obvioisly we can't debate that for obvious reasons

as philosophers I'm sure being provocative - which this certainly is - they are making a name for themselves - this is something that would not come into law ever.

 

[JASMAK]

I agree with what this woman is trying to say...but it really hits home since I also have a disabled child. I do agree that killing a newborn is the same as abortion, but I thought we weren't allowed to talk about abortion on BnB

 

[Dragonfly]

Yeah this is the second thread on abortions I seen in here have the rules changed?

I think this is disgusting how its even printed is beyond me I think its only to upset people . It is murder you cant kill new born babies and it be legal! I dont even agree with abortion anyway but thats stepping way to far.

 

[Vickie]

the rules haven't changed no, but I didn't realize this was here.

Thread closed per forum rules and TOS:

While BabyandBump tries to remain pro-choice on most subjects, out of respect for majority of our members that are either trying to conceive, or pregnant, we ask that you do not discuss topics on abortion and terminations outside of the 'Ethical Prenatal Losses' forum.