Is This Where Godless Philosophy Natural Leads?

[seer]

So remove God from the picture and inherent human worth and what is left but a cost analysis? Subjectively deciding the quality of life, the monetary loss/benefit. Of course if we really are just a higher order of animal - why not abort the new born?


Abortion and after-birth abortion

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201...11-100411.full

Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers3 for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.

Also medical professionals have recognised the need for guidelines about cases in which death seems to be in the best interest of the child. In The Netherlands, for instance, the Groningen Protocol (2002) allows to actively terminate the life of ‘infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering’.4

Although it is reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is against the best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down's syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’.3 But, in fact, people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.5

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

[Seasanctuary]

The paper starts from the assumption that moral protections extend only to (loosely quoting...) individuals capable of attributing to their own existence some basic value value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to them.

Not from the assumption that there isn't a God. Not from the assumption that humans in general lack inherent worth. In the paper's terms, the "cost analysis" is never carried out against human persons.

[Hamster]

An adult cow is more intelligent than a newborn baby so it's more ethical to eat babies than beef

[Pilgrim]

well duh! Tell me something I don't already know.

[Chrawnus]

An adult cow is more intelligent than a newborn baby so it's more ethical to eat babies than beef

I guess Chrs has got his rationale for his baby-eating behaviour now.

[Cerebrum123]

just subscribing

[seer]

The paper starts from the assumption that moral protections extend only to (loosely quoting...) individuals capable of attributing to their own existence some basic value value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to them.

Not from the assumption that there isn't a God. Not from the assumption that humans in general lack inherent worth. In the paper's terms, the "cost analysis" is never carried out against human persons.

Well that was my point. The theist claims that men have intrinsic worth as God's image bearers whether one meets a certain arbitrary definition of person-hood or not.

[Seasanctuary]

Well that was my point. The theist claims that men have intrinsic worth as God's image bearers whether one meets a certain arbitrary definition of person-hood or not.

Since "image of God" doesn't plausibly mean biologically-like-God, theists who subscribe to this doctrine could have special reason to draw the line of moral personhood around mental criteria, like the paper authors do.

Meanwhile, atheists who put a lot of stock into "human rights" language could have special reason to draw the line around the whole species.

There's a tendency to assume theism leads to one thing because a lot of theists hold a certain view, but this overlooks many historical factors beyond bare theism that has led to the status quo.

[seer]

Since "image of God" doesn't plausibly mean biologically-like-God, theists who subscribe to this doctrine could have special reason to draw the line of moral personhood around mental criteria, like the paper authors do.

That's funny, we don't draw the line there. We don't look at a baby or the unborn as "possible" human beings. And "personhood" is too arbitrary to even attempt a definition.

Meanwhile, atheists who put a lot of stock into "human rights" language could have special reason to draw the line around the whole species.

Again, funny - I have not met a lot of atheists in the pro-life movement (though there are few). Let's face it - most of this stuff is coming from the godless left.

There's a tendency to assume theism leads to one thing because a lot of theists hold a certain view, but this overlooks many historical factors beyond bare theism that has led to the status quo.

I have no idea what this means. We are speaking of killing mentally retarded babies...

[Seasanctuary]

That's funny, we don't draw the line there. We don't look at a baby or the unborn as "possible" human beings.

But you could, and be consistent with a belief in God and a further belief that Adam and Eve were made in the image of God.

I'm saying theism isn't the thing making a difference here, even if it happens to act as a decent heuristic in our time and culture. There's a lot more to the total religious and philosophical views of people than whether they think some God exists or doesn't.

Now, if you had asked whether killing infants is one destination to which rejecting Catholic natural law ethics might lead, then I would agree. There is a close connection (not just association) between treating infants and embryos like adult humans in that more filled-out viewpoint, but still not a close connection between rejecting Catholic natural law ethics and accepting infant killing or even embryo killing.

[ZackMartin]

The two issues aren't connected. There is nothing inconsistent about being an atheist opposed to infant euthanasia, nor is there anything inconsistent in being a theist who supports it.

It might be inconsistent with particular religions, as opposed to theism in general, but then it comes down to how you define those religions. Some Christians are pro-choice, if you accept their claims to be Christian (probably many of them have various liberal theological views in other areas, although maybe not all do - do you accept liberal Christians as Christians?) There is a decent logical argument that it is contradictory to accept abortion but reject infant euthanasia. Given that, a pro-choice Christian might decide to become an infant euthanasia supporter - how does that make them any less a Christian than their views on abortion do?

Personally, I'm a theist, but I'm sympathetic to the case for infant euthanasia, provided strong safeguards are in place - both parents should be requesting it, with free and informed consent present, and multiple (say three) senior doctors should be required to support the decision.

Zack

[shunyadragon]

So remove God from the picture and inherent human worth and what is left but a cost analysis? Subjectively deciding the quality of life, the monetary loss/benefit. Of course if we really are just a higher order of animal - why not abort the new born?


Abortion and after-birth abortion

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201...11-100411.full

No

[seer]

But you could, and be consistent with a belief in God and a further belief that Adam and Eve were made in the image of God.

I'm saying theism isn't the thing making a difference here, even if it happens to act as a decent heuristic in our time and culture. There's a lot more to the total religious and philosophical views of people than whether they think some God exists or doesn't.

Now, if you had asked whether killing infants is one destination to which rejecting Catholic natural law ethics might lead, then I would agree. There is a close connection (not just association) between treating infants and embryos like adult humans in that more filled-out viewpoint, but still not a close connection between rejecting Catholic natural law ethics and accepting infant killing or even embryo killing.

Sea, the fact is these are ideas are being generated by the godless. There is no foundation for intrinsic human worth in atheism. In practical terms it always seems to be the theist who is attempting to protect the life of the unborn and now the just born. Whether you find the idea of humans being as the image bearers as valid doesn't really matter - there are real world consequences to world views. Good God man - they are making the case for killing children born with downs syndrome! I know Nazism is thrown around too much in debates - but this really is exactly what the Nazis did with the mentally ill! And this is particularly disturbing to me since I spend eight years in the mental health field as a group manager caring for these very people.

[seer]

No

So we agree?

[shunyadragon]

so we agree?

no!