"After-birth abortion"...

[redrock]

That's what an academic discussion is. Whatever the subject. This is what the article is - an academic discussion published in a specialised medical journal. No doctor/person is claiming this should be OK (or not), no 'message' is being put forth - just logical arguments.

Those are my thoughts on the article. I'm taking it as it's meant to be taken.

well, sort of.. "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."

so it is sort of an argument advocating murder...

The sentence you quote starts with: "..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,...."

What the authors are arguing is that, if one accepts certain criteria for abortion and they can demonstrate this criteria is valid for newborns, then they can reach a certain conclusion. Again, any moral issue is removed from these arguments. It's just logical discussion.

You are using the word 'murder' as moral judgement (or unlawful). That's were morals/ethics/emotions come in. Those things then will counter-act this academic discussion and come to very different conclusions. Of course for people like you and me, something like this is morally reprehensible but have there not been killing of newborns because of their sex, disability, etc. in some countries/cultures?

Just as Prof. Savulescu said: "The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn," he continued. "Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject."

[pandora]

Very Spock- like but even he had a heart...

I think the notion is barbaric with or without emotion

[redrock]

...

[justam]

The other thing that's maddening about this post is that it's so long and wordy to try to disguise it's purpose...

Another language trick people sometimes use.

[pandora]

Very Spock- like but even he had a heart...

Thank you Pandora. You do like mentioning I am heartless and cold.

did not say you I meant the author...

[redrock]

Thanks for that, redrock. I never thought of it - discussion itself, no matter the topic - in those terms.

A subject like this, it's difficult - almost impossible - to put emotions and ethics completely aside. Looking at it from the perspective you described definitely helps.

It is hedonist. 'Great minds' discussing the 'what ifs' of the world (whichever field they may be in), arguments being made in the harsh light of reality in order to try and make sense of them. I guess if these discussions were to swerve from the logical to moral, they would never really take place.

[redrock]

....

[justam]

Thanks for that, redrock. I never thought of it - discussion itself, no matter the topic - in those terms.

A subject like this, it's difficult - almost impossible - to put emotions and ethics completely aside. Looking at it from the perspective you described definitely helps.

It is hedonist. 'Great minds' discussing the 'what ifs' of the world (whichever field they may be in), arguments being made in the harsh light of reality in order to try and make sense of them.

And yet, some topics don't even need to be argued and discussed at length. For example, would people waste time on a long discussion about killing old people once they reached a certain age? No, they wouldn't! Not because it couldn't be discussed academically....but because everyone knows that it would be emotionally wrong. No one discusses the benefit/disadvantages of killing groups of people instead of feeding the people...again, not because it couldn't be discussed academically but everyone feels deeply that it's wrong so why waste time discussing it?

This argument in this article and this post seems to be NOTHING but a match to light a fire under someone's agenda that abortion is wrong. They are trying to blur the edges between abortion and murder of an infant to try to get people to believe that early terminations are wrong.

Let's not forget to look at obvious MOTIVES for starting discussions. Nothing is brought up without a reason!

[redrock]

Justam - many of these topics have been discussed in such a way. Especially the killing/letting die/not feeding the starving (overpopulation discussion). Academia don't need reasons to discuss things as they do. For them, it's not a waste of time. It's research, it's 'what if', logical arguments, numbers, statistics.

[justam]

Yeah, I'm sure. I guess I just had an emotional reaction to this. I don't like it when people try to start arguments in sly ways. And it seemed to be the case here. For the reasons I've mentioned already...

The blurring of the term abortion, the covering of the agenda with a long boring argument, the placement of this long boring article in our little "moving train" portion of a PJ board. It just seemed designed to light a fire and I guess I'm in the right mood to mention it! So often I just ignore the nonsense I see but... killing full-term babies was just a bit too much for me this morning. *sigh*

[redrock]

This article has been taken out of academia context and provoked quite a fury in the 'news' as well, with people commenting on it to suit their agenda and adding their two cents worth. Reaction to it is normal. In context, it's 'fine'. Out of context it can be seen as quite vile.

[justam]

Yes.

[pandora]

Thank you Pandora. You do like mentioning I am heartless and cold.

did not say you I meant the author...

Hmmm.... yeah right. Anyway. I already said too much.

Hey I swear to God you know that means something to me
you everyone was speaking of the author as was I
but of course you try to make my opinion something it wasn't
why?

[dan46er]

Murder.

[he still stands]

The sentence you quote starts with: "..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,...."

What the authors are arguing is that, if one accepts certain criteria for abortion and they can demonstrate this criteria is valid for newborns, then they can reach a certain conclusion. Again, any moral issue is removed from these arguments. It's just logical discussion.

i don't know what the fuck a "moral status" is, but a newborn is a person and has completely equal rights to me or anyone else as soon as it is born, and killing it is murder. furthermore, it is not a "potential person" as the article states, it IS a person. it is a living, breathing thing existing in this world and is no different from me.

You are using the word 'murder' as moral judgement (or unlawful). That's were morals/ethics/emotions come in. Those things then will counter-act this academic discussion and come to very different conclusions. Of course for people like you and me, something like this is morally reprehensible but have there not been killing of newborns because of their sex, disability, etc. in some countries/cultures?

Just as Prof. Savulescu said: "The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn," he continued. "Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject."

You are the one making this a moral argument, I'm simply saying that it is murder because it is. LEGALLY. in this country if you kill a newborn, you will be tried and convicted of murder.

But I guess you're right that I'm also making a moral judgement, because to me murder is immoral.

Basically, this article is diving into some sort of stupid argument that is dissecting the GOLDEN RULE of humanity. I just don't see the reason to question these sort of things. It is a waste of time.