Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 127

Thread: The Philosophy Of Infanticide

  1. #1
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,413
    Amen (Given)
    1642
    Amen (Received)
    4920

    The Philosophy Of Infanticide

    These things usually start in the ivory towers before the trickle down to the general population. I would like to see how pro-abortionists would deny the logic of infanticide.


    After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
    Alberto Giubilini1, Francesca Minerva2


    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...

    ...The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent

    The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

    Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

    http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261
    Last edited by seer; 05-25-2018 at 06:36 AM.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  2. #2
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,733
    Amen (Given)
    11697
    Amen (Received)
    24952
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  3. #3
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,202
    Amen (Given)
    4895
    Amen (Received)
    21819
    Judging by what the UK just did recently to two babies, Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans, they not only support infanticide, but practice it.

    Starlight must be proud.

    Maybe we can extend the idea of 'moral status as nonpersons' to include prochoice nutjobs who support infanticide? They can't be human.

  4. #4
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,413
    Amen (Given)
    1642
    Amen (Received)
    4920
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Judging by what the UK just did recently to two babies, Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans, they not only support infanticide, but practice it.

    Starlight must be proud.

    Maybe we can extend the idea of 'moral status as nonpersons' to include prochoice nutjobs who support infanticide? They can't be human.
    That's the point isn't. These definitions of personhood are so arbitrary as to be useless, or to include or exclude anything.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  5. #5
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,594
    Amen (Given)
    633
    Amen (Received)
    1455
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Judging by what the UK just did recently to two babies, Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans, they not only support infanticide, but practice it.
    I hope you don't know what you're talking about, Sparko, because if you do that's despicable.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

  6. #6
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,202
    Amen (Given)
    4895
    Amen (Received)
    21819
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy View Post
    I hope you don't know what you're talking about, Sparko, because if you do that's despicable.
    That they killed two infants by starving them because they were ill and refused to let the parents take them elsewhere to get treatment? Yep that is despicable.

  7. #7
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,245
    Amen (Given)
    2471
    Amen (Received)
    1778
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    That's the point isn't. These definitions of personhood are so arbitrary as to be useless, or to include or exclude anything.
    They are arbitrary whether or not you define ‘personhood’ in law as beginning at conception or at a later stage. There is little justification for the former except for those with a religious agenda. The most obvious time is when the when the life of the fetus is its own and viable. This is how it was viewed in the Roe v Wade ruling, when it said that the state may not interfere with the decision to terminate a pregnancy until the fetus becomes “viable”, i.e. sometime between the beginning of sixth and seventh months of pregnancy.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  8. #8
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,413
    Amen (Given)
    1642
    Amen (Received)
    4920
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    They are arbitrary whether or not you define ‘personhood’ in law as beginning at conception or at a later stage. There is little justification for the former except for those with a religious agenda. The most obvious time is when the when the life of the fetus is its own and viable. This is how it was viewed in the Roe v Wade ruling, when it said that the state may not interfere with the decision to terminate a pregnancy until the fetus becomes “viable”, i.e. sometime between the beginning of sixth and seventh months of pregnancy.
    No, I don't define "personhood" at all, that is the problem. Conception is the beginning of human life, period.

    Back to my OP: Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons.

    So by their definition of personhood infanticide is justified. So I'm asking people like you Tass - why is their definition of personhood wrong?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  9. #9
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,245
    Amen (Given)
    2471
    Amen (Received)
    1778
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    No, I don't define "personhood" at all, that is the problem. Conception is the beginning of human life, period.
    Yes you do. By implication you are defining personhood (i.e. when the entity is entitled to the rights and protections of the law), to be at conception.

    Back to my OP: Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons.

    So by their definition of personhood infanticide is justified. So I'm asking people like you Tass - why is their definition of personhood wrong?
    I don’t understand what the underlined means. My argument is that the brain pattern IS the “person”. When it ceases you cease and before it develops (at around the end of the second trimester), there is no viable 'person'.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  10. #10
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,413
    Amen (Given)
    1642
    Amen (Received)
    4920
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Yes you do. By implication you are defining personhood (i.e. when the entity is entitled to the rights and protections of the law), to be at conception.
    No I'm not, I'm defining human life. And human life begins at conception. And I said nothing about rights or protections.


    I don’t understand what the underlined means. My argument is that the brain pattern IS the “person”. When it ceases you cease and before it develops (at around the end of the second trimester), there is no viable 'person'.
    The underlined means that one is not a person until, to some degree, it is self aware enough to find value in its own existence. So the question is, logically, why are they wrong and you right?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •