LOGO
Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 03-03-2012, 05:27 AM   #1
Opperioav

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
381
Senior Member
Default After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?
Medical Journal makes case for infanticide: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201...11-100411.full
Opperioav is offline


Old 03-03-2012, 10:50 AM   #2
paulaglober

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
357
Senior Member
Default


After-birth Abortion = murder. Actually, unless there's a completely valid reason, abortion = murder. But how even more heinous of a crime to kill an innocent being who is actually living.

Nice how people like changing names of things to make it seem more kosher. This makes my blood boil.

May Allah give them hidaayat, and if not may He give them the punishment they deserve.
paulaglober is offline


Old 03-03-2012, 10:55 AM   #3
AntonioMQ

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
545
Senior Member
Default


Hypothetically:
If you can accept killing a fetus simply because the mother doesn't want the baby, then why is killing a newborn so bad? It's simply a natural progression of things if you believe that it is okay to abort a fetus. There is barely any major difference in brain activity between a late-stage fetus and a newborn infant.
AntonioMQ is offline


Old 03-03-2012, 11:09 AM   #4
saturninus.ribb

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
378
Senior Member
Default


this is the new "educated and enlightened" form of Jahiliya, stamped and authorized by PhDs and doctors.
saturninus.ribb is offline


Old 03-03-2012, 11:13 AM   #5
paulaglober

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
357
Senior Member
Default
The difference is that the fetus can only be taken care of by the mother. A newborn no longer needs its mother to survive.

The response to this from the article is completely ludicrous in my opinion. This is just another scheme to stop the population increase.

Adoption as an alternative to after-birth abortion?

A possible objection to our argument is that after-birth abortion should be practised just on potential people who could never have a life worth living.9 Accordingly, healthy and potentially happy people should be given up for adoption if the family cannot raise them up. Why should we kill a healthy newborn when giving it up for adoption would not breach anyone's right but possibly increase the happiness of people involved (adopters and adoptee)?

Our reply is the following. We have previously discussed the argument from potentiality, showing that it is not strong enough to outweigh the consideration of the interests of actual people. Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero. On this perspective, the interests of the actual people involved matter, and among these interests, we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption. Birthmothers are often reported to experience serious psychological problems due to the inability to elaborate their loss and to cope with their grief.10 It is true that grief and sense of loss may accompany both abortion and after-birth abortion as well as adoption, but we cannot assume that for the birthmother the latter is the least traumatic. For example, ‘those who grieve a death must accept the irreversibility of the loss, but natural mothers often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible’.11

We are not suggesting that these are definitive reasons against adoption as a valid alternative to after-birth abortion. Much depends on circumstances and psychological reactions. What we are suggesting is that, if interests of actual people should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption.
paulaglober is offline


Old 03-03-2012, 11:44 AM   #6
Doncarlito

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
538
Senior Member
Default
May Allah (SWT) preserve our faith and protect us from such ignorance. Ameen.

("enlightened" people, indeed.)
Doncarlito is offline


Old 03-03-2012, 07:39 PM   #7
kictainiSot

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
536
Senior Member
Default


What we are suggesting is that, if interests of actual people should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption. This is ridiculous, so women will be damaged by giving their newborn for adoption but will not be damaged by killing their newborn?!! i am speechless.

may Allah swt guide us all.
kictainiSot is offline


Old 03-03-2012, 08:13 PM   #8
paulaglober

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
357
Senior Member
Default




This is ridiculous, so women will be damaged by giving their newborn for adoption but will not be damaged by killing their newborn?!! i am speechless.

may Allah swt guide us all.
Hah, exactly the same thing that went through my mind.
paulaglober is offline


Old 03-03-2012, 08:34 PM   #9
TaxSheemaSter

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
483
Senior Member
Default
And they complain we outbreed them when the reality is their killing the few babies they have...many European nations arent producing enough to replace previous generation...
I fail to comprehend the liberal's brain
TaxSheemaSter is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:29 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity