Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

"After-birth abortion" should be permissable! Wow Options · View
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:37:44 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,447
Location: Alabama, United States
"After birth abortion", why should the baby live?

Journal of Medical Ethics...


Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.


===============================================

This is after birth abortion. Not while the baby is still inside the womb. But after a normal vaginally delivered or C-section delivered birth. So, I don't think it is about a woman's health or the right to choose. I don't like abortion and it isn't something I'd choose, but I don't see how anyone can tell a woman what to do with her body. However, this is after that fact.

"newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons"... when does a newborn become an "actual person". Apparantly not when first drawing breath. So when? After his first meal? First dump? When eyes open? When he goes to kindergarten? Legal drinking age? What qualifies as "actual person"?

"Adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people.".... Um I think it would be in the best interest of a newborn that was just brought into the world. As opposed to being killed for sure!!!!

Well Lush, what do you say? Is it right/moral/ethical/evil/inhumane to "abort" a healthy normal newborn child? One that is not "disabled", so I assume there are NO medical necessities for euthanization.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Dirty_D
Posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:52:39 PM

Rank: Head Nurse
Moderator

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,484
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
since i deal with adult patients i could be wrong, but im fairly positive that we dont typically refer to an already born but expired child as aborted. kinda the same way i dont call poo stomach contents!
ArtMan
Posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:07:13 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/29/2011
Posts: 659
Location: South Florida, United States
I am not at all anti-abortion, but this concept sounds insane. That concept does not sound legal by anyone's standards. If the baby has been born it is a human being by every legal definition.

You are invited to read Passionate Danger, Part II, a story collaboration by Kim and ArtMan.
http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/passionate-danger-part-ii.aspx

lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:12:12 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,447
Location: Alabama, United States
naughtynurse wrote:
since i deal with adult patients i could be wrong, but im fairly positive that we dont typically refer to an already born but expired child as aborted. kinda the same way i dont call poo stomach contents!


I agree. But this is about aborting babies after they have been delivered and are alive and well. Yet, unwanted for whatever reason.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:28:35 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,614
Location: Your dirty fantasy
I think they are talking about 'partial-birth' or late stage abortions, where the labour is induced with the intent to end the life of the fetus either during the partial-birth if possible, or immediately after birth. Otherwise, the baby is breathing and therefore it would constitute infanticide (which is quite common in certain cultures).

I'm not in favour of late-stage abortions in general or anything past the mid-way point of the pregnancy, without extenuating circumstances involving the health of the baby or mother (physically or psychologically).

I am guessing the concept of the law of "after-birth abortions" would be to find a legal arguing loophole for the teenage girls that end up secretly giving birth in the bathroom of the 7/11 and then dumping it in the trash.

How else would this law be applied LM? Give us more info. It goes against everything we currently uphold as murder being intentionally stopping the breath of a living human being. Once the baby is breathing - I can't see getting around that with some new legal-term - other than as a potential legal loophole for defence attorneys?

For the record - I am pro-choice. It is one of the most difficult decisions a woman will ever have to make. Having said that, unless there are extremely special circumstances (which at this point need to be argued before a judge in order to qualify for abortions past the second trimester), then I believe that timing is critical, and sometimes it's just too late in the fetus development to make that kind of call. And certainly not post-birth. I don't get why a live birth wouldn't just go into the system the way they have newborn-drop-off centres in some areas of the US where you can just drop off your unwanted baby with no questions asked.

lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:56:02 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,447
Location: Alabama, United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:
I think they are talking about 'partial-birth' or late stage abortions, where the labour is induced with the intent to end the life of the fetus either during the partial-birth if possible, or immediately after birth. Otherwise, the baby is breathing and therefore it would constitute infanticide (which is quite common in certain cultures).

I'm not in favour of late-stage abortions in general or anything past the mid-way point of the pregnancy, without extenuating circumstances involving the health of the baby or mother (physically or psychologically).

I am guessing the concept of the law of "after-birth abortions" would be to find a legal arguing loophole for the teenage girls that end up secretly giving birth in the bathroom of the 7/11 and then dumping it in the trash.

How else would this law be applied LM? Give us more info. It goes against everything we currently uphold as murder being intentionally stopping the breath of a living human being. Once the baby is breathing - I can't see getting around that with some new legal-term - other than as a potential legal loophole for defence attorneys?

For the record - I am pro-choice. It is one of the most difficult decisions a woman will ever have to make. Having said that, unless there are extremely special circumstances (which at this point need to be argued before a judge in order to qualify for abortions past the second trimester), then I believe that timing is critical, and sometimes it's just too late in the fetus development to make that kind of call. And certainly not post-birth. I don't get why a live birth wouldn't just go into the system the way they have newborn-drop-off centres in some areas of the US where you can just drop off your unwanted baby with no questions asked.


Define what psychological circumstance would be extenuating enough for late stage abortion. Genuine question, not sarcasm.

Futhermore on the subject. According to an article on The Blaze After-birth abortions are just that. After a child has been born and it is then discovered that the baby suffers from Downs Syndrome or some other malady or would just impose some other kind of emotional, physical or financial burden on the family. Because, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”


Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”



"This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available."

Other interesting quotes from the authors of the original piece...

"Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her."

"Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life."

"And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative."

I gotta say, I find most of what is being said here to be disturbing.









When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
WellMadeMale
Posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:27:45 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,477
Location: Cakeland, United States
LM, kick start what functions as your imagination for a change, I would suggest.

How do you suppose humans were dealing with this situation in the centuries and generations before the Incubator, modern medical care, the ability to safely remove a fetus weeks before vaginal birth would occur (which would possibly save the child and the mother).

Do you think 'this scenario or similar ones' never occurred before in real life...on the plains of north america...from less than 2 centuries ago back to the beginning of sperm fertilizing ovum?

Do you think it's not still happening today in many parts of the world?

Just a thought.

Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:28:12 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,614
Location: Your dirty fantasy
lafayettemister wrote:


Define what psychological circumstance would be extenuating enough for late stage abortion. Genuine question, not sarcasm.



A psychological circumstance being something that puts the mental health of the mother at an unacceptable risk. These situations are rare - and could involve lack of access to prior medical care, violent conception possibly involving that "subject which we don't discuss in the forums", being extremely underage, or something where the psychological health of the mother would be compromised to such an extent to make it a risk to her survival. It's fine to say "sorry, you have to keep growing the baby inside you" but if the mother ends up out on the street turning to dangerous drugs, back-alley doctors or suicide, then I think those special circumstances can be argued to get a special grant from a judge for a late-term procedure. Each case would have to be evaluated on its own.

As for the article - I think it's ridiculous. Once a baby is breathing, stopping the breath of that infant is (legally) murder. That's just how I define it. If the baby is born with a physical or health ailment and the parents don't want to be involved anymore, they should just be required to sign them over to the state and walk-away. Infanticide is practiced in areas of the world where access to medical care for a sick infant is not available, but unless you're in a third world nation, it shouldn't be up for debate as a standard practice of care.

As an aside, because I believe in euthanasia in cases where death is inevitable and physical suffering is prolonged, I wouldn't have an issue with it for a terminal newborn.

lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:39:53 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,447
Location: Alabama, United States
WellMadeMale wrote:
LM, kick start what functions as your imagination for a change, I would suggest.

How do you suppose humans were dealing with this situation in the centuries and generations before the Incubator, modern medical care, the ability to safely remove a fetus weeks before vaginal birth would occur (which would possibly save the child and the mother).

Do you think 'this scenario or similar ones' never occurred before in real life...on the plains of north america...from less than 2 centuries ago back to the beginning of sperm fertilizing ovum?

Do you think it's not still happening today in many parts of the world?

Just a thought.


Kick start my imagination for a change? Yea, ok.

What humans did centuries ago is irrelevant. Centuries ago we also practiced slave labor. Polio was a death sentence. Influenza killed people. Doctors performed surgery without the benefit of anethesia or sterilization of hands or surgical tools.

Do I think these situations occured before in real life? Yes, of course. But have we not had societal and medical advances?

In this day and age, delivering a healthy baby or one with some challenges and then killing it seems a bit overkill. Once that child draws breath, it's a human being. Unless it is terminal or in unending pain, killing it is murder in my opinion.

As for other parts of the world, I'm sure it does happen. If some woman living in the bush of Papua New Guinea gives birth to a child that can't be cared for properly, that's different. In and advanced society, things could be done in a better way.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Dirty_D
Posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:41:46 PM

Rank: Head Nurse
Moderator

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,484
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
Im with Doll here, but call it what it is not an 'abortion!' The right to euthanasia & the right to abortion should not be confused (& for the record Im in favor of both)
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:09:42 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,447
Location: Alabama, United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:


A psychological circumstance being something that puts the mental health of the mother at an unacceptable risk. These situations are rare - and could involve lack of access to prior medical care, violent conception possibly involving that "subject which we don't discuss in the forums", being extremely underage, or something where the psychological health of the mother would be compromised to such an extent to make it a risk to her survival. It's fine to say "sorry, you have to keep growing the baby inside you" but if the mother ends up out on the street turning to dangerous drugs, back-alley doctors or suicide, then I think those special circumstances can be argued to get a special grant from a judge for a late-term procedure. Each case would have to be evaluated on its own.

As for the article - I think it's ridiculous. Once a baby is breathing, stopping the breath of that infant is (legally) murder. That's just how I define it. If the baby is born with a physical or health ailment and the parents don't want to be involved anymore, they should just be required to sign them over to the state and walk-away. Infanticide is practiced in areas of the world where access to medical care for a sick infant is not available, but unless you're in a third world nation, it shouldn't be up for debate as a standard practice of care.

As an aside, because I believe in euthanasia in cases where death is inevitable and physical suffering is prolonged, I wouldn't have an issue with it for a terminal newborn.


In regard to psychological circumstances, I think what you wrote is fair. I would only hope that any woman that were put in some of the situations mentioned, such as "that which should not be named", violent conception, or extremely underage, that the decision to abort could be decided earlier than late term or after birth. But I still see the possibility of it being considered later in term. If the mother's life is in danger if she continues to carry the child, then late term abortion would be totally legimate. And no doubt a difficult and heart wrenching decision.

I agree. If the child is living and breathing it has the same rights as anyone else. It frightens me that someone would have the authority to decide what health ailment would be considered grounds for ending a newborn's life. Today it could be Downs Syndrome. Later someone could claim that paying for care for a diabetic child is too costly for the family, therefore reason to terminate a newborn.

And I also agree with euthanasia. If the baby is terminal or suffering physically with no hope of improvement, it's the humane thing to do. Again, not an easy decision to make, but one that sometimes must be made.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:23:11 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,614
Location: Your dirty fantasy
lafayettemister wrote:


In regard to psychological circumstances, I think what you wrote is fair. I would only hope that any woman that were put in some of the situations mentioned, such as "that which should not be named", violent conception, or extremely underage, that the decision to abort could be decided earlier than late term or after birth. .


Ideally yes, but in a lot of those cases, it's the pregnancy (showing symptoms and getting that second trimester bump) which first ends up alerting family or healthcare providers that something criminal is happening within the family. The pregnant girl is just the victim and may not even be aware that she is pregnant. She should have full access and rights to terminate in those situations if it's seen in her best psychological interests.

lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:25:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,447
Location: Alabama, United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:


Ideally yes, but in a lot of those cases, it's the pregnancy (showing symptoms and getting that second trimester bump) which first ends up alerting family or healthcare providers that something criminal is happening within the family. The pregnant girl is just the victim and may not even be aware that she is pregnant. She should have full access and rights to terminate in those situations if it's seen in her best psychological interests.


Agreed. There are times when late term abortion is more appropriate. Certainly can't terminate something if you aren't aware there even is a something.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 7:03:47 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 675,525
Where to start? I find this article sickening. Murder is murder. If the media reported on the murder of an infant by an unknown suspect, there would be outrage, fear, and downright panic. I believe that this proof alone elevates infants to the "moral status" of other children and adults. So therefore, for anyone to suggest that it is acceptable to kill an infant...it would be absurd. To make it worse, there is no valid argument, except for that of selfishness. It was made clear that this theory finds it acceptable to murder infants merely for being inconvenient. So where do you draw the line? Is it acceptable to murder your spouse or significant other because one day they refused to help with the housework? Obviously not. What makes this any different? And I'm curious: what if the article promoted killing pets shortly after birth (which I still believe would be horrible!)? I do believe there would be more anger and many more opinions...
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:03:44 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,216
Location: United States
Link to full text.


This isn't a proposal for changing any laws or medical practices. It looks to me more like a position paper that only exists to get people talking about the subject. They're bringing out the idea that in most modern cultures, if a newborn baby has some kind of medical difficulty that ensures it's death, and if it's presently in an unbearable state (we assume unbearable pain, I suppose), then in that situation hastening the baby's death can be a forgivable sin. The question then asked would be, "How broad do we define the set of circumstances in which hastening a baby's death is preferable over allowing the baby (and his/her family) to suffer unbearably?"

For the record, I'm against "after-birth abortions" on moral grounds. I believe that once the baby has reached the point of viability (even if he or she is still in the womb) then it's not just a mass of protoplasm anymore - it's a person. It's just a person that hasn't matured yet. Killing a person is murder. Sometimes, mercy killing can be forgiven, but I don't see any set way of codifying the circumstances where it's allowable. How do you define suffering so that the scales of justice will balance fairly every time? You can't. So each situation must be handled on a case-by-case basis.

That's how I see it anyway.
ArtMan
Posted: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:29:50 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/29/2011
Posts: 659
Location: South Florida, United States
So the paper is actually proposing euthanasia. That can bring up an entire new thread.

You are invited to read Passionate Danger, Part II, a story collaboration by Kim and ArtMan.
http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/passionate-danger-part-ii.aspx

lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:07:58 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,447
Location: Alabama, United States
Part of it is about euthanasia. Part of it is a little gray....part if it is black and white.

"One example is the case of Treacher-Collins syndrome (TCS), a condition that affects 1 in every 10 000 births causing facial deformity and related physiological failures, in particular potentially life-threatening respiratory problems. Usually those affected by TCS are not mentally impaired and they are therefore fully aware of their condition, of being different from other people and of all the problems their pathology entails."

" An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down's syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing.2 This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down's syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. Once these children are born, there is no choice for the parents but to keep the child, which sometimes is exactly what they would not have done if the disease had been diagnosed before birth." ------ I think killing a baby because it has Down's is extreme and inhumane.

" It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down's syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’.3 But, in fact, people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy."

"Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible." ------ so if it may cost too much to raise the baby, let's just put it down. Not euthanasia at all, but cost cutting moves.

"Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia."------- So a mother becomes pregnant, yet decides late in term that the baby will be a burden finanically, she's too young, she's too old, she just doesn't want to be a mom... all permissable circumstance to kill a newborn. What about adoption.. that's coming later.

"Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life."

"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’."------- Let's kill the baby instead of allowing for it to be adopted because it's less traumatic on the mother? What kind of circular logic is that?

"If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn."

Like DD said. In cases of euthanasia, humanely ending the suffering of a newborn is totally conceivable and warranted. No issue there. But killing a baby strictly because it may be a financial burden on a family or society is murder. Plain and simple. If, as the article state, we apply the same reasons for after-birth abortions as to "regular" abortions then there's no reason that isn't allowed for after-birth abortion. If a person decides she doesn't want the baby, no matter how healthy or unhealthy, it can be killed. Nope, i'm not on board with that arguement.











When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Ryario_Darkstar
Posted: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 7:28:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 5/8/2009
Posts: 84
Location: The Throne of the Under World
Rage meter going up..... I am in a state that has a safe haven law in short, If you take your new born in X amount of time to a police station they'll take it without question (Im not sure how long you got but its with in the first few weeks) So why instead of killing an innocent new born the state/cpuntry just adopt a simiular policy. I know 'Because it might encouarage more people to be irresponisble about sex." well nothing is going to stop anyone if they want to do it why should the kid pay cause they dont want to be responsible.

My answer it is vile and unforgivable.
Nikki703
Posted: Friday, March 09, 2012 1:33:13 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/7/2009
Posts: 13,844
Location: The Other Side Of The Mirror
lafayettemister wrote:


But killing a baby strictly because it may be a financial burden on a family or society is murder. Plain and simple. If, as the article state, we apply the same reasons for after-birth abortions as to "regular" abortions then there's no reason that isn't allowed for after-birth abortion. If a person decides she doesn't want the baby, no matter how healthy or unhealthy, it can be killed. Nope, i'm not on board with that arguement.



First off let me state, i am most definitely Pro-Choice. No one has the right to tell a woman what she can and cant do with her body. having said that, if it was me or one of my daughters in a situation of an unwanted pregnancy, would i encourage her to have the baby and give it for adoption, probably. But the choice has to be that of the person who is prgenant.

But an after birth abortion is not an abortion. Once the baby is born, it is a breathing living thing and to kill it is Murder. I can understand doing it if the baby is born with a terminal illness like Tay-Sachs where the child will die and excruciatingly painful death. But to kill a healthy baby because you are unable to financially care for it is criminal. There are alternatives. If such an act is allowed, then why not be able to do the same with a 1yr old or maybe a 3yr old. I decide I am not good at being a mom, guess I can kill my 8yr old! Oops, I lost my job and have no money, guess I can always kill my 17yo! Its the same fucking thing now isnt it?
lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012 9:11:26 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,447
Location: Alabama, United States
This debate was also had on my facebook. A friend of mine who was born a parapelegic takes extreme issue with the statement..."included cases where the new born is not disabled". As in, if the kid is disabled it's just a given.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.