NC GOP candidate says Planned P'hood wants to kill newborns

[Cleopatra7]

I think that this guy is referencing ethicist Peter Singer, who has written in favor of infanticide. Let me explain a bit more about this. Singer makes a distinction between being biologically human and being a person. A person is an individual with self-awareness and the ability to have plans for the future and to express preferences. By this definition, many non-human animals would be considered persons, while severely intellectually disabled humans and infants would not. Singer says that pro-choice people are being inconsistant when they define the beginning of life as the point of birth, as there isn't anything special about being outside the mother's body that confers personhood on a fetus. He considers fetuses and babies to be potential persons, because humans seem to gain self-awareness and full consciousness around eighteen months or so. Because babies are potential persons, Singer says it is less wrong to kill an infant than it would be to kill an older child or adult, who has the ability to plan for the future and express his or her preferences. However, Singer does not believe that people should just go around killing babies for fun, which is what his opponents claim. What he is actually proposing is something like what the ancient Greeks and Romans practiced, where an infant was not considered to be part of the moral community until its parents formally declared it to be a member of the family about a week after birth. When the baby has been claimed by its parents, it gains all the rights of being a person, even if it has not reached the stage of true personhood. During that one week grace period, if the parents decide to reject the infant and there are no plans for adoption, then the baby would be euthanized. Singer generally believes that euthanasia should really only be an option if the baby is severely intellectually challenged, although he notes that it would not be wrong for parents to reject a child with more manageable disabilities like hermaphilia or Down's Syndrome. This is why Singer has earned the wrath of many disability rights activists, who feel like this view de-values the lives of the disabled. As a person with a disability, I myself don't agree with everything Singer says, but I think that he is willing to address topics that a lot of people don't want to face. In light of the Jahi McMath case and the Marlise Munoz case, it does seem like Singer's belief that the traditional "sanctity of life" belief is outdated is correct. If you can, I suggest all FJs to read Singer's books about these issues for yourself, especially "Rethinking Life and Death."

[RosyDaisy]

About trans-vaginal ultrasounds....I had one for medical reasons. The procedure was fully explained to me, and I understood fully why it was needed, and I consented. They even gave me a female tech (not that I cared either way). That's completely different from performing an unnecessary trans-vaginal unltrasound on a woman who is wanting an abortion. In my book that is sexual assault and a way to shame the woman. I didn't feel that way about my ultrasound because my doctor say it was medically necessary.

[RosyDaisy]

I swear on all I love I knew a man, who claimed to be a "radical feminist" and liberal, who believed in fourth-trimester abortions. Yes, LIVING BABIES ALREADY BORN. He said a mother should get to decide, and not even the father should be able to overrule her and demand his born-child get to live.

:serious:

[slickcat79]

About trans-vaginal ultrasounds....I had one for medical reasons. The procedure was fully explained to me, and I understood fully why it was needed, and I consented. They even gave me a female tech (not that I cared either way). That's completely different from performing an unnecessary trans-vaginal unltrasound on a woman who is wanting an abortion. In my book that is sexual assault and a way to shame the woman. I didn't feel that way about my ultrasound because my doctor say it was medically necessary.

This is an important point too. In some (many? most?) cases, a transvaginal ultrasound may be required to safely perform an abortion. But if that is the case, it should be a decision made between the woman and her doctor, based on that doctor's medical expertise and taking the patient's history into account. Lawmakers have no business making that decision with no medical knowledge to go on plus their typical underhanded motives.

[Mama Mia]

I think that this guy is referencing ethicist Peter Singer, who has written in favor of infanticide. Let me explain a bit more about this. Singer makes a distinction between being biologically human and being a person. A person is an individual with self-awareness and the ability to have plans for the future and to express preferences. By this definition, many non-human animals would be considered persons, while severely intellectually disabled humans and infants would not. Singer says that pro-choice people are being inconsistant when they define the beginning of life as the point of birth, as there isn't anything special about being outside the mother's body that confers personhood on a fetus. He considers fetuses and babies to be potential persons, because humans seem to gain self-awareness and full consciousness around eighteen months or so. Because babies are potential persons, Singer says it is less wrong to kill an infant than it would be to kill an older child or adult, who has the ability to plan for the future and express his or her preferences. However, Singer does not believe that people should just go around killing babies for fun, which is what his opponents claim. What he is actually proposing is something like what the ancient Greeks and Romans practiced, where an infant was not considered to be part of the moral community until its parents formally declared it to be a member of the family about a week after birth. When the baby has been claimed by its parents, it gains all the rights of being a person, even if it has not reached the stage of true personhood. During that one week grace period, if the parents decide to reject the infant and there are no plans for adoption, then the baby would be euthanized. Singer generally believes that euthanasia should really only be an option if the baby is severely intellectually challenged, although he notes that it would not be wrong for parents to reject a child with more manageable disabilities like hermaphilia or Down's Syndrome. This is why Singer has earned the wrath of many disability rights activists, who feel like this view de-values the lives of the disabled. As a person with a disability, I myself don't agree with everything Singer says, but I think that he is willing to address topics that a lot of people don't want to face. In light of the Jahi McMath case and the Marlise Munoz case, it does seem like Singer's belief that the traditional "sanctity of life" belief is outdated is correct. If you can, I suggest all FJs to read Singer's books about these issues for yourself, especially "Rethinking Life and Death."

Putting all of the many, many ethical considerations aside, my response to this guy is that he loses any and all credibility solely due to thinking infants " can't express a preference" Has he never been in charge of an infant? Even a newborn very strongly expresses their preferences. Try giving them something they don't want and see what happens. And future planning? I spent my career in social services, if the ability to plan for the future was a requirement for life....well, let's just say my job would have been much less stressful and depressing.

[Trynn]

I wouldn't be a person either, in that case.