3 ms·

No one is advocating for killing infants. The whole “after birth abortion” thing comes from a philosophy paper written by two British authors in the Journal of

by elil17 4y ago

No one is advocating for killing infants. The whole “after birth abortion” thing comes from a philosophy paper written by two British authors in the Journal of Medical Ethics wheee they argued that what they termed “after birth abortions” in certain circumstances could be logically consistent under some ethical frameworks. There was public outcry from pro-choice activists against their argument, and they later published a letter clarifying that they were opposed to any actual policies legalizing infanticide. This all happened in 2011-2012. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/after-birth-abortion/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/after-birth-abortion/ Anti-abortion advocated have claimed that people support killing children as old as 5, but no one who actually holds this view has been identified. Additionally, some people said they were in favor of “fourth trimester abortions” on a survey, but that question was obviously rather misleading. The respondents probably didn’t that pregnancy ends after 3 trimesters. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-old-college-sigh/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-old-college-sigh/

smsm42 4y ago
No one advocating for killing them directly, but there are people advocating for making it legal to kill them if the doctor and the mother so desire, even after live birth. For example: https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/virginia-governor-describes-how-post-birth-abortion-would-proceed https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/virginia-governo... I didn't choose the source and it may be biased - I just took the first link to the matter I found - but I think the gist of it is adequately shown - the law as proposed would make it ok to kill live born infant if the adults present decide that's what they want. No limits, no restrictions, no conditions. It may not be the main goal of the law, but it would be one of the results. It's hard to pin down the exact position though because as I understand the law wasn't passed and the politicians are prone to change their positions if they lead to backlash, but at least as it was initially proposed, no state involvement in such decisions were intended - purely private matter concerning only persons present.
- gaganyaan 4y ago
  I really hate lying for Jesus. That article has lots of quote mining, and buried at the bottom where they begrudgingly include the full quote is: > there may be a fetus that’s non-viable You need to not read or link to fake news.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    There's that line. But there's this line too: > we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers, and, and this is why, Julie, that legislators, most of whom are men, by the way, shouldn’t be telling a woman what she should and shouldn’t be doing with her body If the government is not involved, there's nobody to check the viability. There's nobody to ensure that viable infants aren't killed just because the mother and her provider decided it's the best thing to do. There's an ideological position that is based on "men can't tell women what to do" - and this position is not conditioned on "only in the case when we're talking about non-viable fetus" - it applies to all cases. Also note that opinion is not the opinion of the author of the original law. It's another person trying to defend the law - but there's no guarantee that the letter of the law would match every tidbit of this interview, and there are multiple indications - including ones I quoted - that the intent of the law is to remove any limitations, not conditioned on non-viability of the fetus. Again, I am not saying the author of the law was dreaming about killing as many infants as possible - their motivations were probably closer to the ideology I quoted above - but the consequence of unconditional withdrawal of the state from the picture would be that it is not possible to enforce any conditions, whatever rhetoric the supporters used at the time.
wrp 4y ago
> No one is advocating for killing infants. In the 1980s, Surgeon General Everett Koop made a major effort to campaign against those who were advocating for abortion ex-utero. (https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1984/march-16/surgeon-general-koop-and-fight-for-newborn.html https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1984/march-16/surgeon-g...)
- wickedsickeune 4y ago
  This article doesn't identify anyone advocating for killing infants.
  - wrp 4y ago
    The government is requiring federally funded hospitals to set up review committees to monitor life-and-death decisions about babies who need immediate medical care. Also, notices are to be posted warning that it is unlawful to discriminate against newborns by withholding ordinary treatment because they are handicapped. I suppose some did argue that letting infants die from lack of medical care was not technically killing them. Koop called it infanticide. In the 1970s-80s Koop crusaded against attempts to classify newborns as fetus ex-utero that could be legally terminated at will.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by elil17 4y ago

smsm42 4y ago

No one advocating for killing them directly, but there are people advocating for making it legal to kill them if the doctor and the mother so desire, even after live birth. For example: https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/virginia-governor-describes-how-post-birth-abortion-would-proceed https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/virginia-governo... I didn't choose the source and it may be biased - I just took the first link to the matter I found - but I think the gist of it is adequately shown - the law as proposed would make it ok to kill live born infant if the adults present decide that's what they want. No limits, no restrictions, no conditions. It may not be the main goal of the law, but it would be one of the results. It's hard to pin down the exact position though because as I understand the law wasn't passed and the politicians are prone to change their positions if they lead to backlash, but at least as it was initially proposed, no state involvement in such decisions were intended - purely private matter concerning only persons present.

gaganyaan 4y ago
I really hate lying for Jesus. That article has lots of quote mining, and buried at the bottom where they begrudgingly include the full quote is: > there may be a fetus that’s non-viable You need to not read or link to fake news.
- smsm42 4y ago
  There's that line. But there's this line too: > we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers, and, and this is why, Julie, that legislators, most of whom are men, by the way, shouldn’t be telling a woman what she should and shouldn’t be doing with her body If the government is not involved, there's nobody to check the viability. There's nobody to ensure that viable infants aren't killed just because the mother and her provider decided it's the best thing to do. There's an ideological position that is based on "men can't tell women what to do" - and this position is not conditioned on "only in the case when we're talking about non-viable fetus" - it applies to all cases. Also note that opinion is not the opinion of the author of the original law. It's another person trying to defend the law - but there's no guarantee that the letter of the law would match every tidbit of this interview, and there are multiple indications - including ones I quoted - that the intent of the law is to remove any limitations, not conditioned on non-viability of the fetus. Again, I am not saying the author of the law was dreaming about killing as many infants as possible - their motivations were probably closer to the ideology I quoted above - but the consequence of unconditional withdrawal of the state from the picture would be that it is not possible to enforce any conditions, whatever rhetoric the supporters used at the time.

wrp 4y ago

> No one is advocating for killing infants. In the 1980s, Surgeon General Everett Koop made a major effort to campaign against those who were advocating for abortion ex-utero. (https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1984/march-16/surgeon-general-koop-and-fight-for-newborn.html https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1984/march-16/surgeon-g...)

wickedsickeune 4y ago
This article doesn't identify anyone advocating for killing infants.
- wrp 4y ago
  The government is requiring federally funded hospitals to set up review committees to monitor life-and-death decisions about babies who need immediate medical care. Also, notices are to be posted warning that it is unlawful to discriminate against newborns by withholding ordinary treatment because they are handicapped. I suppose some did argue that letting infants die from lack of medical care was not technically killing them. Koop called it infanticide. In the 1970s-80s Koop crusaded against attempts to classify newborns as fetus ex-utero that could be legally terminated at will.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]