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. 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 Alberto Giubilini 1,2, Francesca Minerva 3,4 Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript. This should be interesting for discussion :V Damn them crazy Aussies |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Sounds reasonable to me. A newborn doesn't have a sense of self yet, and it's plenty legal to kill animals smarter than newborn babies. And tbh I think in any case where this would be an option to consider, it's probably the merciful option. But the best practice is just to not get pregnant in the first place... |
| I was waiting for someone to post after reading an article this morning. Anyway, my personal views is sort of mixed when it comes to this subject, but I can understand the understanding that an after-birth abortion might be more, lets say merciful in comparison to some other alternatives. However, what I thought was interesting was the huge backlash of hate and threats that were made soon after this article was published.(Some comments were really appalling) Edit: It should be mentioned that these ideas of infanticide is not new, and that previous philosophers and bioethicists have given similar views in the past.(in the same academic journal, too) |
ZachGFeb 29, 2012 12:10 AM
| As reasonable as it might sound, my moral views tell me its wrong o_O But imo you shouldnt kill anything, unless you are going to eat it. I cant make a difference between humans and animals, or grown ups and new borns. Why is it legal (in some areas) to kill animals just for the heck of it? Because we are better than them? How are we better? We are just as alive as a spider, or a whale. Just because our brain is a bit better, doesnt mean we are the superior liveforms, does it? Besides, we cant really know if a newborn has a selfconsciousness. How should we know? Noone remembers that time. If this gets legal, there will someday be discussions about whether killing a one-year-old should be legal or not "cause it (probably) has no selfconsciousness". There are so fucking many ways to not to get pregnant. If you mess up, show some fucking responsibility -.- |
shiroto said: How should we know? Noone remembers that time. Actually, that's exactly how we know. Newborn babies don't have brains that are developed enough to remember events and experiences long-term. Without long-term memory, it's impossible to have a knowledge of the self, a personal identity or expectations for the future. |
shiroto said: There are so fucking many ways to not to get pregnant. If you mess up, show some fucking responsibility -.- Too lazy tonight so I'll just say: That's the only part I agree with you on. shiroto said: Besides, we cant really know if a newborn has a selfconsciousness. Read up on biology and psychology. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos"    Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
hikky said: shiroto said: How should we know? Noone remembers that time. Actually, that's exactly how we know. Newborn babies don't have brains that are developed enough to remember events and experiences long-term. Without long-term memory, it's impossible to have a knowledge of the self, a personal identity or expectations for the future. By that reasoning: If I hit my head really hard, get amnesia and forget EVERYTHING, I have no selfconsciousness by definition. Thus its okay to kill me. |
| Although morally abortion may be wrong, the ramifications of keeping and raising a child in an environment that's not suitable can be problematic for the child itself, the mother and society. I'm not sure how a child who is raised by a single mom who's too busy to take care of her kid in a potentially unsafe environment will turn out. Even if s/he turns out fine, there will probably many stressful times if resources are lacking. Somewhat offtopic: There's a species of birds that produces one too many offspring, so the chicks push one out of the nest while the mom watches, so that the "stronger" ones remain. Terrible, isn't it? |
Fui said: Although morally abortion may be wrong, the ramifications of keeping and raising a child in an environment that's not suitable can be problematic for the child itself, the mother and society. I'm not sure how a child who is raised by a single mom who's too busy to take care of her kid in a potentially unsafe environment will turn out. Even if s/he turns out fine, there will probably many stressful times if resources are lacking. I see your point, but there are a bunch of institutions that can take care of thise kids. Fui said: Somewhat offtopic: There's a species of birds that produces one too many offspring, so the chicks push one out of the nest while the mom watches, so that the "stronger" ones remain. Terrible, isn't it? And there are a thousand other examples like that. They are just adjusting their numbers, so the species can survive. Its not really comparable imo. |
Metty said: I am from the 'damn you bet crazy Australia'.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. 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 Alberto Giubilini 1,2, Francesca Minerva 3,4 Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript. This should be interesting for discussion :V Damn them crazy Aussies I believe it is a right thing to do. It allows abortion in cases of abuse, rape, assault, incest etc. Who would want to go through anymore suffering after that? But if the case was 'unprotected' s*x then its just plain stupidity and wrong. I mean if you were raped at a young, or even adult age, would you keep the baby? Be reasonable... After births ----> Adoption center...no one dies...:) Or orphanage I guess... |
SnowingFeb 29, 2012 2:04 AM
      |
| I don't think this would work for a much more practical reason. Mothers are unlikely to want to have their babies put to death after giving birth to them, because the experience of giving birth, asider from being a very painful and unpleasant experience, is supposed to lead to mothers forming a bond with their baby. I have heard that people have intended to put their newborn babies up for adoption, only to change their mind after giving birth. I am not sure how frequently this happens but I would imagine few would be willing to go through the trouble of pregnancy only to give the child on to someone else. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
shiroto said: hikky said: shiroto said: How should we know? Noone remembers that time. Actually, that's exactly how we know. Newborn babies don't have brains that are developed enough to remember events and experiences long-term. Without long-term memory, it's impossible to have a knowledge of the self, a personal identity or expectations for the future. By that reasoning: If I hit my head really hard, get amnesia and forget EVERYTHING, I have no selfconsciousness by definition. Thus its okay to kill me. lets see here.... hikky said: Newborn babies don't have brains that are developed enough to remember events and experiences long-term. hmm. hikky said: Newborn babies shiroto said: By that reasoning: If I hit my head really hard, get amnesia and forget EVERYTHING, I have no selfconsciousness by definition. Thus its okay to kill me. im sorry if im going to be sounding like an ass, but according to this, if you do get amnesia, that is supposedly equivalent to a likeness of a new born baby? it's not the same thing so it shouldnt be compared. also to OP, i dont consider it that nice if us aussies are being labelled "crazy" |
 if i have the grass to lay on and the wind to stroke my cheek, i dont need anything else, sleeping with a contented smile. |
| I'd be interested to see how they argue point (1), unless it is just the self-consciousness argument mentioned above. I'm against it, though; I feel that abortions should be carried out at the earliest possible time to reduce the "similarity" (not a great word, but oh well) that the potential human has to a fully-conscious human. Obviously, waiting for it to be born decreases the distinction between the two concepts and makes justification more difficult. Also, @Snowing: Periods can't be analogised with abortion since they're a natural process, not to mention they're not 'killing' embryos. |
 |
kin37ik said: im sorry if im going to be sounding like an ass, but according to this, if you do get amnesia, that is supposedly equivalent to a likeness of a new born baby? it's not the same thing so it shouldnt be compared. Wait what? I said nothing about likelyness of either one. I just took the definition "X only has a self-consciousness, if it has memories of its past." and substitued X for something, that has no memories of its past, but definitely has a self-consciousness. Thus proved it wrong. Because its not the same thing, is exactly why you CAN compare them o_O You dont go and say "You cant compare apples to bananas, because its not the same thing.", do you? You can compare them, because they are similiar in one regard(you can eat them). |
| I don't know what to think about this. Don't get me wrong I'm pro-choice and all, but if the baby was born and healthy wouldn't the better option be to put it up for adoption? shiroto said: There are so fucking many ways to not to get pregnant. If you mess up, show some fucking responsibility -.- And there are so many fucking ways to get pregnant, so I don't really get this line of thought. |
shiroto said: There are so fucking many ways to not to get pregnant. If you mess up, show some fucking responsibility -.- I agree, I don't agree with killing for no reason. Besides I you're dead set on aborting your baby why don't you do it when it's not fully formed for Gods sake. Waiting until its born to kill it is simply cruel and barbaric in my opinion. |
| I dislike the idea someone decides what is best for you, and I find it rather idiotic to attempt to do so. All it is an attempt to avoid our own problems while deluding ourselves that is it for "mercy and the greater good of that person" as an excuse. The logic always seems sound, but most everyone who says its for "mercy" severely underestimates the will to live, which is remarkably strong in almost everyone. There are tons of scenarios where you would think death would've been a better option, yet people survive through them. If someone hates their own life so much, then they are always free to take their own life, at least it would be them deciding for themselves rather than other people doing it. If we want to be merciful, why stop at after-birth abortion? Why don't we just put a bullet in everyone who is poor to save them from their hardships? Why not kill off the ill and prevent a long painful death [or tons of pain] for them? After all, who in their right mind would want to live a life like any of the aforementioned? I'm not a buddhist, but I'm pretty sure there is that "All life is suffering" line somewhere. There is no clear cut path in life and odds are you'll face at least one decent hardship in your life. Would you want someone to deem for you what would be merciful then? |
holypoop said: I don't know what to think about this. Don't get me wrong I'm pro-choice and all, but if the baby was born and healthy wouldn't the better option be to put it up for adoption? shiroto said: There are so fucking many ways to not to get pregnant. If you mess up, show some fucking responsibility -.- And there are so many fucking ways to get pregnant, so I don't really get this line of thought. As far as I know there is just one way...ô_o |
shiroto said: holypoop said: I don't know what to think about this. Don't get me wrong I'm pro-choice and all, but if the baby was born and healthy wouldn't the better option be to put it up for adoption? shiroto said: There are so fucking many ways to not to get pregnant. If you mess up, show some fucking responsibility -.- And there are so many fucking ways to get pregnant, so I don't really get this line of thought. As far as I know there is just one way...ô_o Well, yeah, technically there is one way. But there are a lot of different circumstances, like rape, the condom can break, plain stupidity and ignorance about sex (like a lot of people seem to think that as long as the man pulls out before he cums the woman won't get pregnant).. To imply that it's such a black and white issue so that you can simply chose when to get pregnant, or that if you fuck up it's your fault and you should just deal with the consequences is ridiculously ignorant. |
shiroto said: well.....that lchanged my view on this completely, this really is fucked up. hell it sounds worse now that i see it laid out like this, If they dont even have a self conscious yet then if we do this we really are just kicking someone while they are downhikky said: shiroto said: How should we know? Noone remembers that time. Actually, that's exactly how we know. Newborn babies don't have brains that are developed enough to remember events and experiences long-term. Without long-term memory, it's impossible to have a knowledge of the self, a personal identity or expectations for the future. By that reasoning: If I hit my head really hard, get amnesia and forget EVERYTHING, I have no selfconsciousness by definition. Thus its okay to kill me. |
Immahnoob said: Jizzy, I know you have no idea how to argue for shit, tokiyashiro said: Jizzy as you would call yourself because youre a dick The most butthurt award goes to you And clearly you havent watched that many shows thats why you cant determine if a show is unique or not Or maybe you're just a child who likes common stuffs where hero saves the day and guys gets all the girls. Sad taste you have there kid you came up to me in the first place making you look more like a kid who got slapped without me even knowing it and start crying about it to me |
| Kill a baby after it's been born... Tiberius used to throw babies he found unfit to be his over cliffs. I think this is the start of a beautiful comeback. Hail Tiberius! |
 |
holypoop said: Well, yeah, technically there is one way. But there are a lot of different circumstances, like rape, the condom can break, plain stupidity and ignorance about sex (like a lot of people seem to think that as long as the man pulls out before he cums the woman won't get pregnant).. To imply that it's such a black and white issue so that you can simply chose when to get pregnant, or that if you fuck up it's your fault and you should just deal with the consequences is ridiculously ignorant. Rape is a very extraordinary situation, so it can be an exception in more general rules. I'm pretty sure anyone who has been through even middle school sex education at least knows where babies do come from, and that is enough to say it is your responsibility when choosing to be sexually active to take responsibility if anything should happen. If you're going to say otherwise with the ignorant superstition example, that would be like saying I didn't know I had to pay utilities when I rented my apartment and that someone should bail me out for it for not figuring that out ahead of time. A stronger example would be if I stabbed someone and said "Well, I didn't really know someone could die from a single stab wound", would that somehow alter the result or the situation afterwards? I find it ignorant that you think people should just escape the responsibilities of their actions. That leads to nothing but entitlement and a lack of awareness of how harmful your actions could potentially be. I would argue that is also part of the problem with my country's thinking. |
DJIzzyIzzyHitler said: shiroto said: well.....that lchanged my view on this completely, this really is fucked up. hell it sounds worse now that i see it laid out like this, If they dont even have a self conscious yet then if we do this we really are just kicking someone while they are downhikky said: shiroto said: How should we know? Noone remembers that time. Actually, that's exactly how we know. Newborn babies don't have brains that are developed enough to remember events and experiences long-term. Without long-term memory, it's impossible to have a knowledge of the self, a personal identity or expectations for the future. By that reasoning: If I hit my head really hard, get amnesia and forget EVERYTHING, I have no selfconsciousness by definition. Thus its okay to kill me. Well, thats not quite what I meant. If we accept the thesis, that you are only conscious of yourself, if you have memories, then a newborn(or even older) cant have a self-consciousness. But that would also mean that someone who has no memories for other reasons than being to young also has no self-consciousness. But my point was, that someone who has lost his memories due to circumstances, still has a self-consciousness, because he knows that he IS here and now, so there are no memories needed. And one cant exclude the possibility that newborns also have an understanding of that they ARE. Putting that aside, you are right, killing someone because he is not consciouss, is just like kicking someone when they are down. An even simpler example: Are you consciouss when you are asleep? Nope. And noone would say it was okay to kill someone when they are asleep. Even if you know that something bad will happen to him, you would wait until he wakes up and tell him about it instead of being "merciful". It comes down to what RandomStuff said: You shouldnt make decisions for others so casually. |
| Sounds good to me. |
 |
RandomStuff said: holypoop said: Well, yeah, technically there is one way. But there are a lot of different circumstances, like rape, the condom can break, plain stupidity and ignorance about sex (like a lot of people seem to think that as long as the man pulls out before he cums the woman won't get pregnant).. To imply that it's such a black and white issue so that you can simply chose when to get pregnant, or that if you fuck up it's your fault and you should just deal with the consequences is ridiculously ignorant. Rape is a very extraordinary situation, so it can be an exception in more general rules. I'm pretty sure anyone who has been through even middle school sex education at least knows where babies do come from, and that is enough to say it is your responsibility when choosing to be sexually active to take responsibility if anything should happen. If you're going to say otherwise with the ignorant superstition example, that would be like saying I didn't know I had to pay utilities when I rented my apartment and that someone should bail me out for it for not figuring that out ahead of time. A stronger example would be if I stabbed someone and said "Well, I didn't really know someone could die from a single stab wound", would that somehow alter the result or the situation afterwards? I find it ignorant that you think people should just escape the responsibilities of their actions. That leads to nothing but entitlement and a lack of awareness of how harmful your actions could potentially be. I would argue that is also part of the problem with my country's thinking. You sound pro-life. I don't like talking to pro-lifers because I just end up frustrated and annoyed, so I'll just say this; I don't think anyone should escape the "responsibility" of their actions, but you need to remember that we're talking about sexual intercourse and the pregnancy that could led to, and not a damn crime. No one in their right mind would think that stabbing someone wouldn't kill or at best injure someone, and if they actually believe that then there's probably something wrong with them mentally. Which in that case, yes they'd probably just be sent to some mental hospital for a few months/years and then cleared for all responsibility. But again, pregnancy and abortion =/= stabbing someone. So that was a shit example in my opinion. Just to clarify, I don't support this after-birth aborting thing, but I do support abortion. |
ry0_kai said: The biggest problem I think is that a lot of childs are growing up disabled, and the baby and also it's parents will struggle all their lives because of this, so I go as far as saying, that in case of a disabled child, there should be a boundary by the seriousness of disability, and they should put the newborn down even if it's parents are against it, because if it was their choice, they would probably say no, even though it's a lot better than all of them in long term... So if that would be possible, I would agree it 100%. Also I don't have any problem with the original question either. A newborn baby is really not so different from an animal, in terms that it has the ability to be something amazing, but it's like a blank notebook. Of course there is a possibility, that someone will write the transcript of Star Wars in it, but if it's in the hands of a person not worthy of it, it will probably contain more like the transcript of Sex and the City... Also you can always buy a new one... So yeah, just by calling it human, and being cute, doesn't mean it's morally wrong to kill it. Also one of the dumbest thing is that in some countries, I think in most of them, euthanasia is illegal. That's just really stupid and cruel... Yeah well probably most of you will hate me for writing all this, but I don't care :P Well i guess i should not exist then :( |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Liloute said: Just one question: Why would anyone want to wait for the baby being born into get rid of it? Why would a woman wait nine freaking months, carrying an unwanted child, suffering from the pregnancy problems, feeling the baby growing inside her, feeling it move and snuggle in her insides, going through giving birth, feeling a living creature going outside her vagina, hearing it yelling its first breath, into kill it?! If you get pregnant, you'd notice it fast enough to get an abortion very early so why does that article exist is beyond me. Maybe if you get a baby, and that baby appears to have some kind of syndrome or whatever which was undetectable before birth? If you give birth to a disabled baby I think it's fine to kill it. I don't know for sure, but I think they are barely sef-conciousness (or maybe not at all). They have just been born. Maybe it's wrong, maybe it's murder, but if you have a good reason to then it's a justified murder. |
| I see dead people. |
| That's insane A late term abortion is far better, far saner, and humane than this. While I'm pro-choice and support abortion even late term abortion, After birth abortion constitutes infanticide. When a baby is actually born it is life and must be protected. The only reason I can see this even be justified if the baby had an untreatable disease that would kill them in a few days or months and even that's a stretch. |
 |
Metty said: Well i guess i should not exist then :( And you wouldn't have lived to regret or even realize it either. I'd actually argue that one isn't actually "born" until a sense of self is formed, which happens much later than the moment the first breath is drawn - can't cite the exact timeframe, but since my own oldest memory is from my 4th year or so, I'd guess that means until 3 years of age. If anyone knows better, feel free to provide the correct timeframe. As for babies that are born despite abortion being available, I don't have personal experience on the topic, but it is often - observed behaviour in my country, with mothers giving birth and abandoning a perfectly healthy child, simply because they can't/won't support it. Wasn't abortion past the n-th month dangerous for the mother? Sure, the logical, intelligent person would act a lot earlier than that last moment, but if everyone was responsible and logical, we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have now. |
Liloute said: Yea, I don't get this either.Just one question: Why would anyone want to wait for the baby being born into get rid of it? Either way, it's logically sound, but alas, since we are not logical beings, I don't think this is a good solution. Sure a newborn and a fetus might be equally mindless and thus nothing more than a potential person, I agree with that, but the difference is that a baby that's actually born is an independent (more or less) creature that does not directly rely on a host body to survive. That alone should make these cases different enough to warrant a distinction between them in my opinion. Also, if there are no prospects of adoption, then why not make some sort of state run nursery intent on bringing up and educating these kids? In so far that is economically viable of course. Or train them up from a young age to specialize in a certain area that benefits society. |
kasapina said: can't cite the exact timeframe, but since my own oldest memory is from my 4th year or so, I'd guess that means until 3 years of age. Then don't spout ridiculous theories like this. Of course there's no exact timeframe, and any professional who claims that there is is wrong; no two ways about it. Human recollection is not binary, nor does it magically begin at any predefined moment, so it's dangerous and rather arbitrary to choose such a moment. "Childhood amnesia," as it's called, is typically offset between 2-5 years of age, and that's a wide range. But let's explore that some more. No one in their right mind would ratify a law that would legally and willfully kill a healthy four-year-old. But what about a three-year-old? Apparently you're at least considering it, but how can you draw the line there? Now what about a two-year-old? As I wrote above, there is evidence of some adults making recollections of that age. Now what about a one-year-old? Is it inconceivable to imagine that somewhere, someone has a memory -- however fleeting -- of that age? The key word here is "arbitrary." I've seen too many debates on the beginning of human life. At fertilization? At embryogenesis? At childbirth? There are good arguments on all sides, because these are defined stages of life. But after childbirth, nothing is defined -- there is no substantial argument for life beginning at some point after childbirth; no way to measure the point at which a child becomes self-conscious and sentient. And that is why I can't support this new measure of post-birth abortion, as a human being and as a ethicist. (In fact, I'm not even going to share my stance on traditional abortion as it's accepted today, because that's another argument altogether that's a bit more ambiguous.) |
kasapina said: Metty said: Well i guess i should not exist then :( And you wouldn't have lived to regret or even realize it either. I'd actually argue that one isn't actually "born" until a sense of self is formed, which happens much later than the moment the first breath is drawn - can't cite the exact timeframe, but since my own oldest memory is from my 4th year or so, I'd guess that means until 3 years of age. If anyone knows better, feel free to provide the correct timeframe. As for babies that are born despite abortion being available, I don't have personal experience on the topic, but it is often - observed behaviour in my country, with mothers giving birth and abandoning a perfectly healthy child, simply because they can't/won't support it. Wasn't abortion past the n-th month dangerous for the mother? Sure, the logical, intelligent person would act a lot earlier than that last moment, but if everyone was responsible and logical, we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have now. I have multiple memories from when i was 2 and 3 years old. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| I was careful to point out that my guess is just that, an unresearched guess. Thanks for the clarification on childhood amnesia, it was informative. You are also correct that drawing the line is difficult, but at the very least we should get as close as possible without risk of crossing it. Humans are born incapacitated, and spend around a year in that state. We are born with less than a third of our normal brain size, and without language capability, which is necessary for any sort of non-primitive thinking (try thinking without words, using just images, and see how far you can get, one can't even categorize objects into groups like "tree", "stone", etc). I think there is no doubt that children are not self - aware at birth. With the same lack of doubt I believe this timeframe can easily be extended for the first month. Grounds for debate could be found if I were to extend that to encompass the first year, but I personally believe that this is the safe sweet spot that doesn't risk crossing the line. Even if it isn't, as long as the first month or right after birth periods are free of reasonable suspicion for self-awareness, after-birth abortion is easily justifiable. |
shiroto said: hikky said: shiroto said: How should we know? Noone remembers that time. Actually, that's exactly how we know. Newborn babies don't have brains that are developed enough to remember events and experiences long-term. Without long-term memory, it's impossible to have a knowledge of the self, a personal identity or expectations for the future. By that reasoning: If I hit my head really hard, get amnesia and forget EVERYTHING, I have no selfconsciousness by definition. Thus its okay to kill me. First of all, nobody gets complete amnesia. Most forms of amnesia leave people with their language ability, motor ability and most or some of their memories. Most forms of amnesia are also temporary. Second of all, and more importantly, those are people who already have a history and social ties. Killing them creates suffering in the people that will miss them. A newborn has left no footprint on the world, they don't have relationships with people, they haven't carved out an identity. It's not a sensible comparison. And frankly, if someone actually managed to completely and totally lose their long-term memory and their ability to form it, they would effectively be a vegetable and euthanasia would be a strong option to consider. People are only special because of their experiences and the personality that those develop into. Without those, we're just simple reactionary things drifting in time, not particularly above the level of any bug. Not that I'm arguing for killing newborn babies, I think the better route is prevention in the first place, and in the case of an abortion, there's no need to wait until the baby is born. Still, there's really nothing there to make it "more wrong" aside from people's personal feelings. |
hikkyFeb 29, 2012 9:56 AM
kasapina said: I was careful to point out that my guess is just that, an unresearched guess. Sorry, I didn't mean to attack you personally. kasapina said: Humans are born incapacitated, and spend around a year in that state. We are born with less than a third of our normal brain size, and without language capability, which is necessary for any sort of non-primitive thinking (try thinking without words, using just images, and see how far you can get, one can't even categorize objects into groups like "tree", "stone", etc). I think there is no doubt that children are not self - aware at birth. I agree with most of this. kasapina said: With the same lack of doubt I believe this timeframe can easily be extended for the first month. Grounds for debate could be found if I were to extend that to encompass the first year, but I personally believe that this is the safe sweet spot that doesn't risk crossing the line. Even if it isn't, as long as the first month or right after birth periods are free of reasonable suspicion for self-awareness, after-birth abortion is easily justifiable. Rather than a counterargument, I'll ask a question: is it morally justifiable to cook a month-old infant and serve it as a meal? I'm not asking whether you would personally, I'm asking if you think it's justifiable from a moral, ethical, and legal standpoint. You're indirectly stating that without self-awareness, babies are essentially equivalent (even if not equal) to animals, so I'm assuming you wouldn't have a problem with someone eating one. I understand that, to some extent, I'm engaging in a logical fallacy, but I just want to know your gut reaction to that question. |
| The first thing that came to mind (since you asked for gut reaction) was that babies are too expensive to eat. Having an adult exit the labor force for months, at risk for their own health, not to mention the comparatively small medical bill. Now that is more of a line of thought than a reaction, plus isn't as much about morals as it is about reason. When it comes to actual reaction based on morals, I have to say that the image of being served a baby on a platter isn't exactly pleasant. This reminds me of something I read last year that had to do with morals, it was about moral vs practical, and had three theoretical practical but immoral examples. A quick google search didn't give me anything, it went along the lines of: -If a woman throws away her country's flag to free space in her home, the act could easily be considered immoral. It is also practical. -A more complex example would involve a family finding a dead dog run over on the street. They take it home and cook it. Again, could be seen as immoral, yet they didn't actually kill the dog, they just elected not to let the meat go to waste. What would you say if the family was poor? And if they were rich and literally did it just not to waste the meat? -Siblings/Cousins elect to have sex in a summer camp. Nobody will know about it except they, and they won't let it get to their feelings either (won't become a relationship), they're just doing it for fun, and once. Immoral, and not very practical beyond the "easy fun", but would you be against it (presuming their judgment of their own feelings is sound)? Point being, hey, let's eat them post-birth aborted babies, don't waste the meat. Immoral, sure, but not logically wrong. It is an extreme example, yet still the only logical argument against eating is that it may just provide an incentive for parents to kill their children to sell (I read of a cannibal restaurant that has people sell their organs). Sure, it sound wrong, and it has to, because the example can hardly be more extreme than that. |
FadewayFeb 29, 2012 10:35 AM
holypoop said: You sound pro-life. I don't like talking to pro-lifers because I just end up frustrated and annoyed, so I'll just say this; I don't think anyone should escape the "responsibility" of their actions, but you need to remember that we're talking about sexual intercourse and the pregnancy that could led to, and not a damn crime. No one in their right mind would think that stabbing someone wouldn't kill or at best injure someone, and if they actually believe that then there's probably something wrong with them mentally. Which in that case, yes they'd probably just be sent to some mental hospital for a few months/years and then cleared for all responsibility. But again, pregnancy and abortion =/= stabbing someone. So that was a shit example in my opinion. Just to clarify, I don't support this after-birth aborting thing, but I do support abortion. The analogy was an example of why "safety nets" aren't always the best idea. The fact I didn't believe they would die, should that mean that any charge related to the death should be ignored and I should only be charged with assault via stabbing since I didn't know any better? Your problems with the claim of ignorance in stabbing shows you how hard it is to really prove someone is ignorant, much the same I don't see how someone in their right mind doesn't acknowledge having sex even with proper precautions could lead to pregnancy, even if they think the chance is .01%. I never said it was a crime or a punishment, only the analogy I used had any indication of such a thing, it would be you who jumped to that conclusion. I consider owning a home a responsibility, does that mean it is a punishment? Responsibility =/= punishment. But I suppose I should digress from arguing this point further, since it would be nonsensical to argue with someone who is on the same side as me on this argument. |
SaiphFeb 29, 2012 11:09 AM
| That newborn may become a man who will change the world ,he deserves a chance. Killing him/her is like killing a normal citizen which is a crime. |
 Try League of Legends. |
| An abortion topic. Just what this forum didn't need. |
holypoop said: giglfoosm said: I do not believe in abortion, it is killing a human being. No, it's not. Fetuses aren't human beings. They're parasites. I hate both of these posts. |
|
| Man, all this thread needs to do is start talking about eugenics.Then it will have fufilled my every expectation. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
giglfoosm said: holypoop said: giglfoosm said: I do not believe in abortion, it is killing a human being. No, it's not. Fetuses aren't human beings. They're parasites. sorry for my wording, what I was trying to say is it will grow into a human. If you read the rest of my post I said "you are denying the person they will become the right to life". But that's like saying that if a woman doesn't use every egg in her body she's killing or at least denying a possible human being the right to live. It's illogical. Jack_Rav said: holypoop said: giglfoosm said: I do not believe in abortion, it is killing a human being. No, it's not. Fetuses aren't human beings. They're parasites. I hate both of these posts. Why do you hate mine? If a fetus cannot survive outside the womb, it is a parasite. |
holypoopFeb 29, 2012 12:24 PM
shiroto said: As reasonable as it might sound, my moral views tell me its wrong o_O But imo you shouldnt kill anything, unless you are going to eat it. I cant make a difference between humans and animals, or grown ups and new borns. Why is it legal (in some areas) to kill animals just for the heck of it? Because we are better than them? How are we better? We are just as alive as a spider, or a whale. Just because our brain is a bit better, doesnt mean we are the superior liveforms, does it? Besides, we cant really know if a newborn has a selfconsciousness. How should we know? Noone remembers that time. If this gets legal, there will someday be discussions about whether killing a one-year-old should be legal or not "cause it (probably) has no selfconsciousness". There are so fucking many ways to not to get pregnant. If you mess up, show some fucking responsibility -.- Yes, it actually does. Our advanced brain is what allows us to be at the top of the food chain because without it we wouldn't be that high up since we're pretty much average at everything (eye sight, hearing etc). |
| Shameless self-promotion: http://www.pernerple.com/ Slyr3do0n said: MAL is the dark underbelly of the anime community. While other naive fanboys and fangirls run around in real life forming clubs and squealing in deafening high pitch noises about their favourite animus, we remain here, meticulously dismantling the credibility of each and every show, until all that remains is a steaming pile of tropes and ass pulls which we then devour to gratiyfy our glutinous and masochistic desires. |
| I agree it should be allowed. But, it shouldn't be called "abortion". Killing is killing. To avoid the word "kill" or "murder" is to agree that either of these things is evil in nature, which is bs. |
kasapina said: Metty said: Well i guess i should not exist then :( And you wouldn't have lived to regret or even realize it either. I'd actually argue that one isn't actually "born" until a sense of self is formed, which happens much later than the moment the first breath is drawn - can't cite the exact timeframe, but since my own oldest memory is from my 4th year or so, I'd guess that means until 3 years of age. If anyone knows better, feel free to provide the correct timeframe. You stick to this "sense of self" idea pretty nicely, but you conveniently avoid the idea of life just as nicely. Whether or not it has a "sense of self" is one thing, but it is living and breathing independently and that cannot be denied. There are also several psychiatric disorders that challenge the idea of self, so I assume it would be okay to dispose of them, even though research there and amongst other areas proves it is not a clear cut concept when talking of "self", it is okay for us to proceed anyway. If we're talking about rationalizing the better good of society, why should we sacrifice potential instead of already used potential? People often talk about abortion as a means of population control and preventing hardships, but why should we only focus on the beginning of the cycle of life? I'm talking about elders, they are a colossal waste of resources spent on people who have already contributed their full potential to society, and such a large burden that there are huge fears that future generations will not be able to support them. Perhaps hardships for new life wouldn't exist or be so prevalent if we would get rid of what is really taking up the resources [elders]. Why not just clear them out of the way, lift the tremendous burden they place on us, then use the savings to further progress and support new life? With these people out of the way, it would be far easier to have these resources support new life instead of old used up ones, bettering progress. At least the newborn has the potential to contribute back for its investment in resources, an elder does not [at the very least to a much lesser degree] @Holypoop: -Sure, the fetus can be called a parasite, but if you're going by that definition humans could be said to be parasitic on any of their environments in many senses. We cannot survive outside the body of our environments and we take far more than we give back. Perhaps being a parasite is just in our nature. While you label it "fetus" that is just conveniently switching terminology to debase the importance of the term in a way most stereotypes do. Many insist they are human, but I can just as easily interchange the term pertaining to their developmental stage whether I call you a fetus, newborn, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, elder, it is all pertaining to the same idea. Just because I start insisting you are an "elder", should that give me the right to presume you are not a human being because I can classify you as something else? |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |