I didn't mean for baby killing to really enter in here... It was merely meant as a radical example. Please forgive the diversion...
I understood that. I did apologise for "chipping in".@wraith808's comment seemed pretty apposite:
Without quoting the text rendered in the referenced text (and having to add the spoiler tag), it would appear that it is an argument of semantics rather than substance, and that after-birth abortion is a euphemism on the same level as collateral damage.
We presumably are capable of using and hiding behind the same cold logic - developed using our natural intellectual faculties - to rationalise (say) SOPA, FRAND, etc. to meet our confirmation bias as we might use to rationalise (say) "after-birth collateral damage" or the toxic gassing of thousands of Kurds. These things start off as an idea or concept, and we have the power to move them into reality by our actions.
The experience gained from past decisions made by unelected EU Statists would seem to hold out little credible hope that they will not
move to enable further potential erosion of freedoms in the area of free software in (say) FRAND. There's not much more I could add to that.
However, lacking similar experience of Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva (the authors of the paper After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
), then we might
be able to hold out a reasonable hope that they may be wanting to help the medical profession to arrive at a better resolution of the current issues around abortion/infanticide. I hope so, at any rate.
The Journal of Ethics also publishes a Response to the paper, from a Catholic Theologian. He is on the side of the victim of abortion/infanticide - the foetus. His details are:
Charles C. Camosy is Ast. Prof. of Theology at Fordham University in New York City. He is author of Too Expensive to Treat? and Peter Singer and Christian Ethics, and blogs at CatholicMoralTheology.com.
Camosy opens his rational response with:
Despite the wide public outcry over their article, Giubilini and Minerva’s arguments in defense of infanticide are nothing new. Peter Singer has become one of the best known philosophers in the world in part because of the attention he has received from defending the practice.
Infanticide was such an established part of the culture of ancient Greece and Rome that Christians and Jews became subjects of public mockery for opposing it. Even today, infanticide is consistently practiced in places where the Judeo-Christian tradition does not serve as a moral foundation, such as China and India.
He ends with:
For many people, but perhaps especially for Christians who are committed to nonviolence and special concern for the vulnerable, these conclusions are morally repugnant and can produce strong emotional reactions. And it is often appropriate to react with strong negative emotion in response to a great and violent injustice directed a particularly vulnerable population. I know, for instance, that when I first started reading Singer’s arguments about infanticide I became very angry, and today I believe quite strongly Giubilini and Minerva’s arguments are fundamentally wrongheaded. And yet, something needs to be said about the way many have reacted to their
article. Though anyone advancing an argument in the public sphere on a controversial issue should expect to get strong negative attention (especially when doing so in a deliberately provocative way), it must be said that the personal attacks and threats of violence that have been leveled at Giubilini and Minerva—especially when the attacks come from those who identify as Christians—have been absolutely disgraceful. That hate and vitriol are spewed by people on all sides of these controversial debates is nothing new, but Christians are called to love and solidarity even with those who oppose us on massively important issues like this. When we behave in ways which undermine our own values of love, solidarity, and respect for life, we not only fail to live the life to which Jesus called us, but we also undercut the effectiveness of our own arguments.
By contrast, the FRAND proposals have, up until now, apparently been prepared in relative secrecy and at the behest of the commercial software lobby group. Who is going to be given the opportunity to speak on behalf of the victim (Freedom) - in opposition to the proposals?
Erm, well, erm, nobody, it seems. You are probably going to have to protest if you want an opposite point of view to be heard at all.
Of course, you could nominate someone - how about Mr Petr Mach, the chairman of a Czech libertarian party, the Free Citizens Party (SSO)?
He is a leading Czech libertarian and euroskeptic.
Hmm. He would seem like a good choice - but wait, he likely as not will definitely be prevented from having an opportunity to be heard at all - e.g., here.
The last thing the unelected EU Statists might want, it seems, is to have their undemocratic, dubious and shaky proposals debated in an open forum.
Of course, some people might say that this was an uncomplimentary and racist thing to say about the unelected EU Statists, but I couldn't possibly comment.
What I would say though is, "Thank God for people like Charles Camosy and Petr Mach", and as for those multi-millions of foetuses killed (before and after birth), well, I would apologise to them that we do not remember their all-too-brief existence collectively, in the same way that we remember (say) the Holocaust - the genocide of a scant 6 million Jews.
"Don´t be afraid to see what you see." (Ronald Reagan)