Wednesday, February 22, 2012

"Don’t like infanticide? Then don’t do it"

What if arguments for abortion were applied to infants?

Seven arguments for infanticide.

* * *

Don't think government-condoned infanticide happens now as part of botched abortion procedures?

Consider this:

"After doctors realized the "blunder," the woman, who was 32 weeks pregnant [do the math], had to undergo an emergency cesarean to deliver the sick fetus, where it was later terminated."

If you want it, it's your baby, if you don't it's just a fetus.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

3 comments:

Anon1152 said...

Did the math. And yes, I needed a calculator (to be sure). 32 weeks is 8 months.

Based on the article you link to (about the 32 week fetus that was "terminated"), I think that it is misleading to suggest that the government in this case "condones infanticide".

The story describes a "blunder". And governments (and hospitals, and doctors, and patients) do not "condone" medical errors or blunders.

This sounds like other stories one hears about, where someone who went in to have a cancerous kidney removed ends up having the wrong kidney removed, and then ends up having both kidneys removed. Or perhaps cases where one goes in to have one cancerous testicle removed, but has the wrong testicle removed, and then ends up with both removed. (I've chosen these analogies carefully. In the former, the word begins with the three letters "kid", and in the latter... well... every sperm is sacred... But I digress).

I don't think this counts as a case of "government condoned infanticide."

When it comes to what you call "infanticide", this is one of those cases that is probably NOT condoned by the government.

There is an interesting equivocation here (in the situation, not in your blog post), between the "fetus" that was supposed to be "terminated" and ultimately was terminated, and the "fetus" that was not supposed to be "terminated", but was terminated by accident.

*

I'd like to know what the doctors told her about the "fetus" that was supposed to be aborted. The source you link to links to another source that says "She had decided to abort one of the babies on the advice of doctors who told her the baby had a congenital heart defect which would seriously threaten his survival." What does that mean exactly?

*

-anon1152

P.S.
I have read the "What if arguments for abortion were applied to infants" article that you linked to... but would need more time and thought that I can muster to respond to it.

RkBall said...

1152 "I think that it is misleading to suggest that the government in this case "condones infanticide". "

I knew when I wrote this you would catch me up on this statement. There is certainly no mention in the article of any whiff or hint of criminal charges being brought against the medical staff who "terminated" the baby. To me, that is condoning. Or is it "condonment"?!

IMO, the woman would have a good legal case against wrongful death of the sick fetus who was, apparently, born alive and then "terminated". This would be the ultimate of ironies, since her intent in aborting was not just to "end the pregnancy" or "control her body" but to KILL the fetus.

Regards.

Anon1152 said...

"I knew when I wrote this you would catch me up on this statement."

-- That's what I'm here for...

*

"There is certainly no mention in the article of any whiff or hint of criminal charges being brought against the medical staff who "terminated" the baby. To me, that is condoning."
-- It is true that there is no mention in the article of criminal charges. But a state (any agent, even an individual person) has many ways to express disapproval (or... non-condonement?).

There has been no whiff of charges in the recent case of an infant bitten to death by the family dog* either. But I hardly think that this means that anyone "condones" babies being eaten by dogs.

*

"IMO, the woman would have a good legal case against wrongful death of the sick fetus who was, apparently, born alive and then "terminated". This would be the ultimate of ironies, since her intent in aborting was not just to "end the pregnancy" or "control her body" but to KILL the fetus."

--I think she'd have a better case in the case of the "healthy" fetus (or is it healthy "fetus"?) that was "terminated." But to acknowledge the termination of the healthy fetus as infanticide would be to acknowledge the termination of the less-than-healthy-fetus as infanticide. If the less-than-healthy-fetus was born... it might be possible to bring a "wrongful life"** case before the courts. (I find the very concept... disturbing).

*

Obviously something went wrong here. At least one thing went wrong here. I suppose one of the debates would be whether one thing went wrong, or whether two things went wrong.

You may have assumed (after I've left a number of comments, over a number of weeks or months) that I am "pro-choice". And you would have assumed correctly. But I admit that abortion does present a moral problem that I'm not sure that I can fully resolve.

I think that the case you bring up (where one fetus is supposed to survive, and another is supposed to be "terminated") is (or can be) related to debates about whether or not there should be an exception for rape or incest in proposals to criminalize abortions. Do you think so, or am I stretching things too much?

-anon1152


*http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/infant-bitten-to-death-by-familys-pet-husky/article2340730/

**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_life

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"