Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Philosophy Of Infanticide

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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, 08:36 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...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      No I'm not, I'm defining human life. And human life begins at conception.
                      Certainly!

                      And I said nothing about rights or protections.
                      Well this is what the abortion debate is all about; otherwise you’ve merely stated a truism.

                      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?
                      That’s not the argument; self awareness has nothing to do with it. Until a brain pattern begins to develop (at around the end of the second trimester), there is no viable 'person' to warrant the rights and protection of society, this is the argument. This is why virtually all abortions are performed within the first trimester.
                      “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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        That’s not the argument; self awareness has nothing to do with it. Until a brain pattern begins to develop (at around the end of the second trimester), there is no viable 'person' to warrant the rights and protection of society, this is the argument. This is why virtually all abortions are performed within the first trimester.
                        That is not what I'm asking Tass, I'm asking you why your definition of personhood is right and the authors in the OP are 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...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          If there were no moral implications to abortion, you would not need to add another term to define when something is alive.

                          The fact that we are now debating "personhood" indicates that there are moral implications. Otherwise, we would not need an additional term to justify it morally and ethically.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            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.
                            Ok, so you don't know what you are talking about. Charlie Grad was not starved; he wasn't just ill but terminally ill; and the refusal was because the treatment the parents wanted would have been both painful and futile.
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by element771 View Post
                              If there were no moral implications to abortion, you would not need to add another term to define when something is alive.

                              The fact that we are now debating "personhood" indicates that there are moral implications. Otherwise, we would not need an additional term to justify it morally and ethically.
                              yep...
                              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...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              160 responses
                              505 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                              21 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X