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.
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.
I don't want to read the article, but is there an age limit on the term "newborn?"
That looks pretty interesting. Thanks for the link.
Before reading it, I'll say that I probably agree that a newborn doesn't have the necessary requirements for personhood. However, you have to draw the line somewhere, preferably erring on the side of caution, and birth seems like a good place to draw that line.
Highest score: 3063; Highest position: 67; Winner of {World War II tournament, -team 2010 Skilled Diversity, [FuN||Chewy]-[XII] USA}; 8-3-7
Haggis_McMutton wrote:That looks pretty interesting. Thanks for the link.
Before reading it, I'll say that I probably agree that a newborn doesn't have the necessary requirements for personhood. However, you have to draw the line somewhere, preferably erring on the side of caution, and birth seems like a good place to draw that line.
A good point. There is a difference between medical "viability" and legal "viability."
thegreekdog wrote:I don't want to read the article, but is there an age limit on the term "newborn?"
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.
thegreekdog wrote:I don't want to read the article, but is there an age limit on the term "newborn?"
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.
Yet again.. until people actually understand that "abortion' refers to miscarriages and life-threatening situations, not just fully healthy or even "deformed" children who parents just decide to get rid of, this debate will continue to be nonsense. Or, often just a bunch of egotistical people trying to tell women what to do with their bodies.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Yet again.. until people actually understand that "abortion' refers to miscarriages and life-threatening situations, not just fully healthy or even "deformed" children who parents just decide to get rid of, this debate will continue to be nonsense. Or, often just a bunch of egotistical people trying to tell women what to do with their bodies.
Just so I'm clear, you're saying that because women have occasional miscarriages and end up in situations where an elective abortion is essential to save the life of the mother (an ectopic pregnancy for instance), we should not object to elective termination of newborns within the first few weeks after delivery?
There have been a number of cases in the news of women suffering from postpartum depression terminating the lives of their children. Would you consider that the moral equivalent of ending an ectopic pregnancy?
PLAYER57832 wrote:Or, often just a bunch of egotistical people trying to tell women what to do with their bodies.
This.
It's the woman's body, so it's her choice. Telling people what they should or should not do with their bodies is ridiculous. What right exactly does anyone have to do that?
IMO a foetus starts to have rights when it's no longer physically attached to it's parent. That is a sensible point to give something it's own rights.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Yet again.. until people actually understand that "abortion' refers to miscarriages and life-threatening situations, not just fully healthy or even "deformed" children who parents just decide to get rid of, this debate will continue to be nonsense. Or, often just a bunch of egotistical people trying to tell women what to do with their bodies.
are you fucking serious player?
you don't think the debate revolves around whether the fetus is human or not? you think it's about restricting women's rights? get real.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
PLAYER57832 wrote:Yet again.. until people actually understand that "abortion' refers to miscarriages and life-threatening situations, not just fully healthy or even "deformed" children who parents just decide to get rid of, this debate will continue to be nonsense. Or, often just a bunch of egotistical people trying to tell women what to do with their bodies.
are you fucking serious player?
you don't think the debate revolves around whether the fetus is human or not? you think it's about restricting women's rights? get real.
I know j9blue! I have a passionate hate for people that think this is about liberty or choice. That is completely retarded and inhumane. It is all about whether the fetus counts as human otherwise it is murder, even if it is a deformed rape baby.
2009-08-12 03:35:31 - Squirrels Hat: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! 2009-08-12 03:44:25 - Mr. Squirrel: Do you think my hat will attack me?
Wait, this thread is about an argument posed in the Journal of Medical Ethics. They started with the assumption that pre-term elective abortion is commonly accepted in society. They argued that there is no essential difference between a fetus and a newborn and concluded that what is ethically and morally acceptable in the case of a fetus can reasonably be extended to newborns as well.
The discussion is not about whether abortion is acceptable (though the journal publisher did note that one potential response would be to posit that after-birth abortion is morally unacceptable, and therefore, the moral equivalence argued for in this article would require that pre-term abortion fall under a similar moral judgement), it's about whether abortions which are already accepted can be extended past the point of birth.
pmchugh wrote:I know j9blue! I have a passionate hate for people that think this is about liberty or choice. That is completely retarded and inhumane. It is all about whether the fetus counts as human otherwise it is murder, even if it is a deformed rape baby.
if the fetus is a human, then eliminating its choice to live or die is worse than eliminating a woman's choice to escape 9 months of inconvenience
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
) --- it's got SHIELDS!
