After-birth Abortion

[volinbham]

Not sure what to say about the conclusion these researchers came to other than :blink:

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say - Telegraph

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “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’.

 

[GAVol]

What a bunch of eggheaded bs.

 

[volinbham]

Pretty much

 

[rjd970]

Ridiculous.

 

[Il Principo]

Put the gun/knife/needle in the researcher's hand and see if he still thinks it's ok.

 

[VOLatile]

Huh?

 

[OrangeYankee]

This is why I'm on the side of late term abortions being illegal.... they are just starting the process of trying to push that window of acceptance just a liiiiitllle further. This needs to be stopped cold and we as a society need to hammer down when life truly begins before these barbarians are able to grab any traction.

 

[YorkVol]

Horrible, just horrible. My youngest was found in a trash pile in an alley in johennesburg. Thank God the Sisters of Charity didn't think this way.

 

[utvolpj]

I believe Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva should be at the top of the list for a post-birth abortion

 

[YorkVol]

I believe Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva should be at the top of the list for a post-birth abortion

Yes.

 

[milohimself]

Did anybody actually read the article? It sounded as if they were saying if infanticide is illegal, then abortion should be as well because theres ethically no difference.

Maybe I've chosen to look at it differently, but it's the strongest pro life argument I've ever heard.

 

[milohimself]

I believe Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva should be at the top of the list for a post-birth abortion

Apparently they compared you to a lynch mob.

 

[utvolpj]

went back and read it. What they are doing is just a continuation of the "when does life begin" argument. Some thoughts

“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.”

really wide brush here. Too wide IMO

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

not really a ringing endorsement for the NHS is it? I can't see how that % is even possible in today's world. We had almost everything tested between 10-12wks. I don't believe Downs is that hard to diagnose with the proper testing

“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.”

that's just not true in most cases. Taking the extreme example to prove your point sounds like bad science

 

[milohimself]

Iirc the percentage is actually about the same here.

 

[GAVol]

Did anybody actually read the article? It sounded as if they were saying if infanticide is illegal, then abortion should be as well because theres ethically no difference.

Maybe I've chosen to look at it differently, but it's the strongest pro life argument I've ever heard.

The part about viability vs being a " person" is just flat out tortured.

 

[YankeeVol]

That's crazy

 

[utvolpj]

Iirc the percentage is actually about the same here.

then it's still by choice since a genetic test will nail it almost every time and the stat is flawed. If someone cared enough where they would kill the newborn because of it then you might think they would have the test done.

 

[milohimself]

The part about viability vs being a " person" is just flat out tortured.

Forgetting the infanticide for a moment, I think it's a reasonable exercise, with no practical application, about answering the question of when something becomes human.

 

[milohimself]

And before you all flip **** on me, because I know you will, that's not to say I agree with the findings or logic.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Did anybody actually read the article? It sounded as if they were saying if infanticide is illegal, then abortion should be as well because theres ethically no difference.

Maybe I've chosen to look at it differently, but it's the strongest pro life argument I've ever heard.

the argument was exactly the opposite. They are arguing that the two are moral equals, so outlawing infanticide is as absurd as outlawing abortion.

 

[RespectTradition]

Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that
she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.

This statement justifies killing about half of the college kids I went to school with.

 

[n_huffhines]

Did anybody actually read the article? It sounded as if they were saying if infanticide is illegal, then abortion should be as well because theres ethically no difference.

Maybe I've chosen to look at it differently, but it's the strongest pro life argument I've ever heard.

I didn't read more than the quote bham posted, but immediately took it as a clever statement against abortion, rather than an endorsement of infanticide. The latter seems too absurd.

 

[milohimself]

I didn't read more than the quote bham posted, but immediately took it as a clever statement against abortion, rather than an endorsement of infanticide. The latter seems too absurd.

I was thinking A Modest Proposal the whole time

 

[Thrasher865]

Thinking about aborting my 22 year old sister.

 

[RespectTradition]

Overall, the arguments in the paper are very weak. There are assumptions, that we are not given any reason to accept, and the arguments built on those assumptions are not logical necessities, but are merely assertions.

However, this article does raise some interesting points. If one accepts their logic, then we have no obligation to preserve the environment for future generations, no obligations to make sure the economy is viable for future generations and no reason to preserve knowledge for future generations. Since only 'people' are deserving of rights and we have no obligations to anyone who is not a 'person', then we owe future generations nothing, even if they have already been born. Also, again by their logic, if someone kills your infant child, shouldn't that person be charged with vandalism rather than murder? Since murder is the unlawful killing of a 'person'.