Recent Posts5526
Living Room / Re: Software Alliance's FRAND proposes to have Free software outlawed in the EU?
« Last post by IainB on March 01, 2012, 07:06 AM »Allow me to cite an example of utter, complete, pure evil that I cannot possibly express my disgust for, but that I do not believe should be censored or banned:
http://jme.bmj.com/c...2011-100411.abstractAbstractYes. They advocate killing newborn babies. It's difficult to imagine anything more callous or evil.
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.-Renegade (February 29, 2012, 11:11 PM)
Sorry to chip in here, and I presume you weren't really requiring a response, but, even though it was an off-topic comment, I felt I should suggest that since the context of the paper you link to is:
J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411- then it would seem eminently reasonable to present the argument in that paper, since it would seem to formalise a logical and structured conclusion that could be drawn from the apparent mess of contradictory/conflicting ethical and moral perspectives that collectively seem to currently allow killing a foetus.
Law, ethics and medicine
Paper
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
The argument being put forward is that:
...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.There was nothing in the paper (that I could see, anyway) that specifically suggests that the authors of the paper:
...advocate killing newborn babies.
The author affiliations are given as:
Author Affiliations
1. Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
2. Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3. Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4. Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
In the paper, just before the Conclusions, it says:
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.- and the start of the Conclusions says:
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...
The paper appears to be making a rational argument.
From it, it could be reasonably supposed that the paper might simply be a serious challenge to the status quo to sort out the arguably compromised ethics/morals that surround the act of so-called legalised abortion. The paper would seem to be smack-bang in the right context and forum for that, at any rate.
I would like to see what (if any) the outcomes of the paper are in the medical profession. It can't be easy being obliged by society to try and play God.
If we are being observed by space aliens - as some have suggested - then I hate to think what they might think of our "civilization".
For example, we do such strange things, including wholesale chopping up of living foetuses in women's wombs and vacuuming the bits out (QED). This could seem a somewhat strange and barbaric thing for a species to do to itself, whatever the given justification may be. But this could arguably seem no more strange than deliberately killing the foetus after birth - which we also do (QED) - whatever the given justification may be.
So, if you can justify as legal doing the first one, then why not the second?
Hmm...tricky.
Prior posts in DCF of potential relevance:
Top 10 most depressing quotes from Orwell's 1984:
(see attachment in previous post)
"We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent there will be no need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler....-zridling (March 14, 2008, 12:59 AM)
(see attachment in previous post)-IainB (January 23, 2012, 04:47 AM)
(endearing smile)
