Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 79

Thread: "Ethicists argue for the killing of newborn babies as a logical extension of abortion."

  1. #1

    "Ethicists argue for the killing of newborn babies as a logical extension of abortion."

    LRC: You Knew It Was Coming

    A paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible, even if the baby is perfectly healthy, in a shocking example of how the medical establishment is still dominated by a eugenicist mindset.

    The paper is authored by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

    The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

    “The fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant,” the authors claim, arguing that adoption is not a reasonable counter-argument because the parents of the baby might be economically or psychologically burdened the process and the mother may “suffer psychological distress”. How the mother could not also “suffer psychological distress” by having her newborn baby killed is not explained.
    [...]
    Matthew Archbold of the National Catholic Register explains how the legalization of infanticide, killing newborn babies, is the logical conclusion of the starting point of the argument, which is that the fetus is not human and has no right to live.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Just stupid.

    The opposing side of this argument also makes mistakes, in that they assign positive rights to a group of people.

    Surely, that both sides are errant should signal that the argument itself is flawed and based on a false premise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  4. #3
    Dr. Paul says "there is no difference between aborting one minute before birth or one minute after birth" and these guys say "Yeah, so lets kill both!"

    This argument could be extended to infinity and be used to kill those the government finds undesirable.

  5. #4
    The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

    Hmmmmm. Where have I heard this before? Something about certain ethnic groups being declared non-human. Sure sounds familiar...anyone wanna help me out?
    Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. -James Madison

  6. #5
    Any argument for abortion also fits perfectly as an argument for infanticide.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Any argument for abortion also fits perfectly as an argument for infanticide.
    This is true. And one could argue that it could be extended to an argument for killing at ever-increasing ages without much effort.

  8. #7
    Like it or not, this does seem to be a conclusion which logically follows from the pro-choice position (at least with regard to healthy fetuses vs. healthy newborns). Fortunately enough, it illustrates how morally bankrupt and absurd such a position is.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  9. #8
    Isn't it odd how "bio-ethicists" rarely have a grasp on ethics at all?
    "When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system's game. The establishment will irritate you - pull your beard, flick your face - to make you fight, because once they've got you violent then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don't know how to handle is non-violence and humor. "

    ---John Lennon


    "I EAT NEOCONS FOR BREAKFAST!!!"

    ---Me



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddyRey View Post
    Isn't it odd how "bio-ethicists" rarely have a grasp on ethics at all?
    The religion of science will be the cause of more murder, slavery, and misery than all of the world religions that have come before it.
    Last edited by Sola_Fide; 02-28-2012 at 05:32 PM.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Yieu View Post
    This is true. And one could argue that it could be extended to an argument for killing at ever-increasing ages without much effort.
    Quote Originally Posted by AquaBuddha2010 View Post
    The religion of science will be the cause of more murder, slavery, and misery than all of the world religions that have come before it.
    Flashback: Discover declares “The End of Morality”

    As an aside, the other day I read an essay in a recent issue of Discover Magazine called, The End of Morality. I also found this commentary on it.

    In this article, which promotes the triumph of scientific reason, utilitarianism, over what it contends are mere emotions, holdovers from history, it was put forward that it makes rational economic sense to kill one healthy person and harvest their organs, in order to provide them to five other people who can then live a higher quality of life, as an increase of goodness on the whole. The revulsion that one feels at murder is an unthinking instinct which can be overcome by higher thinking, the power of the will.

    And it held this out as the higher 'good' in the new scientific morality, freed of the restraints of the mere instinct to preserve innocent life.

    "You have these gut reactions and they feel authoritative, like the voice of God or your conscience. But these instincts are not commands from a higher power. They are just emotions hardwired into the brain as we evolved."
    The logical extensions of such reasoning should be perfectly obvious to anyone with a sense of history.

    And one does not even have to kill them to put them to the good service of the State, and those predestined for a higher quality of life, the übermenschen. At least, not in the beginning.

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la męme chose.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Any argument for abortion also fits perfectly as an argument for infanticide.
    Not really.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucille View Post
    Really good point tying that in! That argument is along the same lines.

  15. #13

    Killing Newborns is Just as ETHICAL as Aborting Fetuses

    EDIT TO ADD:
    Just found similar thread here: Moderator Please Move
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363908

    ---------------------------------

    Ethicists Argue Killing HEALTHY, NORMAL, and VIABLE Newborn Babies Should Be Allowed


    Shocking reminder that eugenicist beliefs underpin medical establishment
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/ethicist...e-allowed.html
    Paul Joseph Watson - Prison Planet.com
    Tuesday, February 28, 2012

    The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health,
    killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is,
    including cases where the newborn is
    not disabled
    .”

    --------------------------

    I can't comment. But if you wish to yourself, perhaps you should address it here:

    Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au

    sick,

    presence

    For sake of digital preservation,
    FULL TEXT FOLLOWS:

    After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

    + Author Affiliations

    • 1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
    • 2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    • 3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    • 4Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK




    • Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.


    • Received 25 November 2011
    • Revised 26 January 2012
    • Accepted 27 January 2012
    • Published Online First 23 February 2012


    Abstract

    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.

    Introduction

    Severe abnormalities of the fetus and risks for the physical and/or psychological health of the woman are often cited as valid reasons for abortion. Sometimes the two reasons are connected, such as when a woman claims that a disabled child would represent a risk to her mental health. However, having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children,1 regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself.
    A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human.

    Such an issue arises, for example, when an abnormality has not been detected during pregnancy or occurs during delivery. Perinatal asphyxia, for instance, may cause severe brain damage and result in severe mental and/or physical impairments comparable with those for which a woman could request an abortion. Moreover, abnormalities are not always, or cannot always be, diagnosed through prenatal screening even if they have a genetic origin. This is more likely to happen when the disease is not hereditary but is the result of genetic mutations occurring in the gametes of a healthy parent. 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. Many parents would choose to have an abortion if they find out, through genetic prenatal testing, that their fetus is affected by TCS. However, genetic prenatal tests for TCS are usually taken only if there is a family history of the disease. Sometimes, though, the disease is caused by a gene mutation that intervenes in the gametes of a healthy member of the couple. Moreover, tests for TCS are quite expensive and it takes several weeks to get the result. Considering that it is a very rare pathology, we can understand why women are not usually tested for this disorder.

    However, such rare and severe pathologies are not the only ones that are likely to remain undetected until delivery; even more common congenital diseases that women are usually tested for could fail to be detected. 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.

    Abortion and after-birth abortion

    Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers3 for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.

    Also medical professionals have recognised the need for guidelines about cases in which death seems to be in the best interest of the child. In The Netherlands, for instance, the Groningen Protocol (2002) allows to actively terminate the life of ‘infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering’.4

    Although it is reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is against the best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. 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.5

    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.

    In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise 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. 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.

    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.

    There are two reasons which, taken together, justify this claim:

    • The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.
    • It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.

    We are going to justify these two points in the following two sections.

    The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent

    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.

    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. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

    Our point here is that, although it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a ‘person’, a necessary condition for a subject to have a right to X is that she is harmed by a decision to deprive her of X. There are many ways in which an individual can be harmed, and not all of them require that she values or is even aware of what she is deprived of. A person might be ‘harmed’ when someone steals from her the winning lottery ticket even if she will never find out that her ticket was the winning one. Or a person might be ‘harmed’ if something were done to her at the stage of fetus which affects for the worse her quality of life as a person (eg, her mother took drugs during pregnancy), even if she is not aware of it. However, in such cases we are talking about a person who is at least in the condition to value the different situation she would have found herself in if she had not been harmed. And such a condition depends on the level of her mental development,6 which in turn determines whether or not she is a ‘person’.

    Those who are only capable of experiencing pain and pleasure (like perhaps fetuses and certainly newborns) have a right not to be inflicted pain. If, in addition to experiencing pain and pleasure, an individual is capable of making any aims (like actual human and non-human persons), she is harmed if she is prevented from accomplishing her aims by being killed. Now, hardly can a newborn be said to have aims, as the future we imagine for it is merely a projection of our minds on its potential lives. It might start having expectations and develop a minimum level of self-awareness at a very early stage, but not in the first days or few weeks after birth. On the other hand, not only aims but also well-developed plans are concepts that certainly apply to those people (parents, siblings, society) who could be negatively or positively affected by the birth of that child. Therefore, the rights and interests of the actual people involved should represent the prevailing consideration in a decision about abortion and after-birth abortion.

    It is true that a particular moral status can be attached to a non-person by virtue of the value an actual person (eg, the mother) attributes to it. However, this ‘subjective’ account of the moral status of a newborn does not debunk our previous argument. Let us imagine that a woman is pregnant with two identical twins who are affected by genetic disorders. In order to cure one of the embryos the woman is given the option to use the other twin to develop a therapy. If she agrees, she attributes to the first embryo the status of ‘future child’ and to the other one the status of a mere means to cure the ‘future child’. However, the different moral status does not spring from the fact that the first one is a ‘person’ and the other is not, which would be nonsense, given that they are identical. Rather, the different moral statuses only depends on the particular value the woman projects on them. However, such a projection is exactly what does not occur when a newborn becomes a burden to its family.

    The fetus and the newborn are potential persons

    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.

    It might be claimed that someone is harmed because she is prevented from becoming a person capable of appreciating her own being alive. Thus, for example, one might say that we would have been harmed if our mothers had chosen to have an abortion while they were pregnant with us7 or if they had killed us as soon as we were born. However, whereas you can benefit someone by bringing her into existence (if her life is worth living), it makes no sense to say that someone is harmed by being prevented from becoming an actual person. The reason is that, by virtue of our definition of the concept of ‘harm’ in the previous section, in order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm.

    If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. So, if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed, had our parents decided to kill us when we were fetuses or newborns, our answer is ‘no’, because they would have harmed someone who does not exist (the ‘us’ whom you are asking the question), which means no one. And if no one is harmed, then no harm occurred.

    A consequence of this position is that the interests of actual people over-ride the interest of merely potential people to become actual ones. This does not mean that the interests of actual people always over-ride any right of future generations, as we should certainly consider the well-being of people who will inhabit the planet in the future. Our focus is on the right to become a particular person, and not on the right to have a good life once someone will have started to be a person. In other words, we are talking about particular individuals who might or might not become particular persons depending on our choice, and not about those who will certainly exist in the future but whose identity does not depend on what we choose now.

    The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends,8 is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence. Actual people's well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of. Sometimes this situation can be prevented through an abortion, but in some other cases this is not possible. In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. We might still have moral duties towards future generations in spite of these future people not existing yet. But because we take it for granted that such people will exist (whoever they will be), we must treat them as actual persons of the future. This argument, however, does not apply to this particular newborn or infant, because we are not justified in taking it for granted that she will exist as a person in the future. Whether she will exist is exactly what our choice is about.

    Adoption as an alternative to after-birth abortion?

    A possible objection to our argument is that after-birth abortion should be practised just on potential people who could never have a life worth living.9 Accordingly, healthy and potentially happy people should be given up for adoption if the family cannot raise them up. Why should we kill a healthy newborn when giving it up for adoption would not breach anyone's right but possibly increase the happiness of people involved (adopters and adoptee)?

    Our reply is the following. We have previously discussed the argument from potentiality, showing that it is not strong enough to outweigh the consideration of the interests of actual people. Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero. On this perspective, the interests of the actual people involved matter, and among these interests, we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption. 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’.11

    We are not suggesting that these are definitive reasons against adoption as a valid alternative to after-birth abortion. Much depends on circumstances and psychological reactions. What we are suggesting is that, if interests of actual people should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption.

    Conclusions

    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.

    Two considerations need to be added. First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.
    Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

    Acknowledgments

    We would like to thank Professor Sergio Bartolommei, University of Pisa, who read an early draft of this paper and gave us very helpful comments. The responsibility for the content remains with the authors.

    Footnotes
    • Competing interests None.
    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.


    References
    • Abortion Act. London: Stationery Office, 1967.
    • European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies. EUROCAT Database. http://www.eurocat-network.eu/PRENAT...DetectionRates (accessed 11 Nov 2011). (data uploaded 27/10/2011).

      • Kuhse H,
      • Singer P

      . Should the Baby live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985:143.

      • Verhagen E,
      • Sauer P

      . The groningen protocol—euthanasia in severely Ill newborns. N Engl J Med 2005;10:959–62.

      • Alderson P

      . Down's Syndrome: cost, quality and the value of life. Soc Sci Med 2001;5:627–38.

      • Tooley M

      . Abortion and infanticide. Philos Public Aff 1972;1:37–65.

      • Hare RM


      • Hare RM

      . Abortion and the golden rule. In: Hare RM, ed. Essays on Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993:147–67.

      • Hare RM


      • Hare RM

      . A Kantian approach to abortion. In: Hare RM, ed. Essays on Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993:168–84.

      • Hare RM


      • Hare RM

      . The abnormal child. Moral dilemmas of doctors and parents. In: Hare RM, ed. Essays on Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993:185–91.

      • Condon J

      . Psychological disability in women who relinquish a baby for adoption. Med J Aust 1986;144:117–19.
      [Medline][Web of Science]

      • Robinson E

      . Grief associated with the loss of children to adoption. In: Separation, reunion, reconciliation: Proceedings from The Sixth Australian Conference on Adoption. Stones Corner, Brisbane: Benson J, for Committee of the Conference, 1997:268–93, 278.
    Last edited by presence; 02-28-2012 at 07:26 PM.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  16. #14
    The paper is authored by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.
    The first question anyone should ask is who is he and why do we care what he thinks?

    People are acting like this is a law now or something, it's just something some idiot wrote in a paper on the other side of the globe. Who cares?

  17. #15
    Da hell? So they're extending abortion to newborns? Why is that necessary? WHY!?

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by NoOneButPaul View Post
    The first question anyone should ask is who is he and why do we care what he thinks?

    People are acting like this is a law now or something, it's just something some idiot wrote in a paper on the other side of the globe. Who cares?
    It will be viewed by many as professional because it was published in a medical journal. To some people, that gives weight to things.
    Last edited by Yieu; 02-28-2012 at 05:53 PM.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    The philosophy of liberty is pro-life. There is no way around this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...o-life+liberty

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by NoOneButPaul View Post
    The first question anyone should ask is who is he and why do we care what he thinks?

    People are acting like this is a law now or something, it's just something some idiot wrote in a paper on the other side of the globe. Who cares?
    That's like saying why should you care what new regulations are being imposed in California.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Lishy View Post
    Da hell? So they're extending abortion to newborns? Why is that necessary? WHY!?
    When is abortion ever necessary?

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Just stupid.

    The opposing side of this argument also makes mistakes, in that they assign positive rights to a group of people.

    Surely, that both sides are errant should signal that the argument itself is flawed and based on a false premise.
    Uh, what do you mean?
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison View Post
    The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

    Hmmmmm. Where have I heard this before? Something about certain ethnic groups being declared non-human. Sure sounds familiar...anyone wanna help me out?
    Basically everyone who wasn't a white European.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  25. #22
    I'm pretty sure this is satire, in the vein of a Modest Proposal by Swift. Even if it isn't, it works as such by pointing out that using birth as the line of demarcation is completely arbitrary.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by NoOneButPaul View Post
    The first question anyone should ask is who is he and why do we care what he thinks?

    People are acting like this is a law now or something, it's just something some idiot wrote in a paper on the other side of the globe. Who cares?
    Because his logic is sound. If not, point out the flaws. You don't have to be "somebody" in order to have a valid opinion. That is the kind of elitism that spawns authoritarianism.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt View Post
    I'm pretty sure this is satire, in the vein of a Modest Proposal by Swift. Even if it isn't, it works as such by pointing out that using birth as the line of demarcation is completely arbitrary.
    It is not satire. It was published in a medical journal on ethics.

    Yes, there are actually people that think like the author, as hard as that is to believe. It is shocking, but they exist.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Originally Posted by eduardo89
    Any argument for abortion also fits perfectly as an argument for infanticide.


    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Not really.
    Would you care to elaborate? It seems to me that most of the reasons used for abortion could be used on a newborn.

    After all, it's still not viable if left on it's own.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison View Post
    The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

    Hmmmmm. Where have I heard this before? Something about certain ethnic groups being declared non-human. Sure sounds familiar...anyone wanna help me out?
    Gentiles?

    Rev9
    Drain the swamp - BIG DOG
    http://mindreleaselabs.com/
    Seeking work on Apps, Games, Art based projects

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    When is abortion ever necessary?
    Are post facto decisions allowed?

    Rev9
    Drain the swamp - BIG DOG
    http://mindreleaselabs.com/
    Seeking work on Apps, Games, Art based projects

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    Like it or not, this does seem to be a conclusion which logically follows from the pro-choice position (at least with regard to healthy fetuses vs. healthy newborns). Fortunately enough, it illustrates how morally bankrupt and absurd such a position is.
    Wait a minute! You are saying it is the same thing but only "with regard to healthy fetuses vs. healthy newborns"? Is this a newborn with the sniffles or a fetus with 47 chromosomes? There is a reason so many in one crowd or the other display extremist and absolutist tendancies.

    This Aussie is a crackpot and it speaks little of either side of the debate here.

    Here is my analogy. A mother's womb is like China. In China, I believe murder is wrong but I do not believe it is our government's responsiblity to stop murder in China. It is too far away, context is lacking, our moral authority is not clearly present, the Chinese are better equipped to handle this than the US govevernment (however much I distrust the Chinese), etc, etc. Even though there are clearcut cases where murder is wrong in China - and we would be morally right to intervene - I see staying out as the lesser evil.

    We respect borders for a reason and there is a clear border between inside another human being and outside that human being.

    It is the same with a mother's womb: we lack jurisdiction, the mother has the greatest interest in both parties, her judgement should be respected, Doctors are better suited to give advice than the police and Judges, outlawing behaviors of this sort only drives them underground, and nothing will stop the mother from taking actions that would result in miscarriage or worse (for society).

    What is the overlap between people clamoring for Obama's birth certificate and those seeking to eliminate the moral distinction between birth and pre-birth? Logically, they should not care where he was born as exiting another human being is a pointless distinction. The so-called Pro-Life crowd wants to reduce or eliminate this distinction. This kook down under wants to eliminate the distinction. I do not. I like fences. Fences make good neighbors. When baby Pablo crawls over that fence, then he is deserving of my protection. Until then, it is not my business (unless I was the father or some suitably close relation with a clear interest).

    I don't want a government big enough or nosy enough to concern itself with abortion. Yes, abortion is wrong and distasteful (generally - *I* would not want to bring a severely disadvantaged child into this world nor would I ask *you* to pay for it if I did).

    It is sickening that some would suggest my position is the same as this Aussies kook. I have less in common with him - the Pro-Life crowd has more (IMO).

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Yieu View Post
    It is not satire. It was published in a medical journal on ethics.

    Yes, there are actually people that think like the author, as hard as that is to believe. It is shocking, but they exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yieu View Post
    Dr. Paul says "there is no difference between aborting one minute before birth or one minute after birth" and these guys say "Yeah, so lets kill both!"

    This argument could be extended to infinity and be used to kill those the government finds undesirable.
    Indeed it could, and has

  34. #30
    Wait what?

    I'm saying that the often-used pro-choice argument in favor of abortion, placing the mother's rights above that of the fetus, has just been extrapolated to arrive at its logically consistent end here; which, in effect, demonstrates the lack of validity for that argument.

    It's a matter of property. Pro-choicers suggest that since the mother has a right to her property (body) which shouldn't be violated, she has the 'right to abort'. But a newborn baby also infringes on the mother's property requiring both attention from the mother and property of the mother to survive. Thus, if it is acceptable for a mother to abort due to a fetus supposedly violating her property (body); then in order to be logically consistent it must also be acceptable for newborns to be killed for violating her property (body, home, etc.).

    It is self-evident that the latter argument is absurd, therefore the former argument must also be absurd as a matter of logical consistency.

    This is my take on it, anyhow.
    Last edited by Cabal; 02-28-2012 at 06:36 PM.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Abortion Doctor Arrested — After Not Killing Babies
    By Origanalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-16-2014, 12:23 AM
  2. Replies: 77
    Last Post: 01-26-2014, 09:11 PM
  3. Sound Premise, Logical Extrapolation, "Inaccurate" Conclusion. "God Does Not Play Dice."
    By Kludge in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-20-2013, 09:26 AM
  4. Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
    By mad cow in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 03-20-2013, 08:59 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-24-2007, 06:32 AM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •