Thread: After birth Abortion.
February 24th, 2014, 9:33 am #1
After birth Abortion.
"two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:
[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … 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."
I'm reading this article again just to grasp what these individuals are saying/pushing for before I can respond.
Right now at a loss for words, just want to see what fellow members think."Anti-Establishment anarchist?"
February 24th, 2014, 9:54 am #2
Exposure has been a human practice for as long as there've been people. It isn't right or wrong, in so much as it happens. It's only wrong when people place a significant value on infants, and have the capacity to back that value up with tools, investment and time.
Some ages, like our own, produce all three in large quantities, and can therefore valorize infants. Some ages, as in most of them, place a higher stock on quantity, because infant mortality is already pretty damned high."On soft gray mornings widows cry/The wise men share a joke/I run to grasp divining signs/To satisfy the hoax."
February 24th, 2014, 10:06 am #3
I think I'm too disgusted to respond without getting myself permanently banned.
February 24th, 2014, 10:07 am #4
3 year old academic article that was a exercise in logic NOT POLICY MAKING or POLICY PROPOSAL.
From the Authors:
We started from the definition of person introduced by Michael Tooley in 1975 and we tried to draw the logical conclusions deriving from this premise. It was meant to be a pure exercise of logic: if X, then Y. We expected that other bioethicists would challenge either the premise or the logical pattern we followed, because this is what happens in academic debates. And we believed we were going to read interesting responses to the argument, as we already read a few on this topic in religious websites.
However, we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal. This was not made clear enough in the paper. Laws are not just about rational ethical arguments, because there are many practical, emotional, social aspects that are relevant in policy making (such as respecting the plurality of ethical views, people’s emotional reactions etc). But we are not policy makers, we are philosophers, and we deal with concepts, not with legal policy.
War On String May Be Unwinnable, Says Cat General
February 24th, 2014, 10:07 am #5
Maybe we should "expose" a few so-called philosophers instead?Standup Philosopher
Some people's mid-life crisis last their whole lives.
February 24th, 2014, 10:09 am #6
February 24th, 2014, 10:10 am #7
February 24th, 2014, 10:11 am #8
I am not certain why folks would get boiling mad at what amounts to a thought exercise.GREAT GOOGLY MOOGLY
February 24th, 2014, 10:12 am #9
February 24th, 2014, 10:12 am #10
February 24th, 2014, 10:13 am #11
February 24th, 2014, 10:13 am #12
February 24th, 2014, 10:13 am #13
February 24th, 2014, 10:16 am #14War On String May Be Unwinnable, Says Cat General
February 24th, 2014, 10:18 am #15"On soft gray mornings widows cry/The wise men share a joke/I run to grasp divining signs/To satisfy the hoax."