Medical ethicists: sure, it's ok to kill babies. "After-birth abortions".

I can see how this sort of a debate would be a hot topic for newborns in the Far East. Over there, youth in Asia is quite common.

Firstly, why is this in MPSIMS? It ought to be in GD, or, more realistically, the Pit.

Secondly, who gives a fuck? Are we supposed to get mad about what drunk college kids say in late night bull sessions too? It isn’t policy, it isn’t going to be policy; it’s mental masturbation. Anyone who bothers to give a shit about this is basically admitting they have nothing real in their life to care about.

What a non-issue.

“Your honor, in regards to Enderw24’s death, I claim justifiable homicide, on the basis of cruel and unusual pun-ishment”.

Hard to tell without knowing exactly how they feel about abortion rights.

If I had to bet, it would be on the idea that they’re looking to get attention as budding ethicists and “stimulate debate”, without knowing or caring about the consequences.

This kerfuffle reminds me of an article recently published in an A.M.A. ethics journal by two authors who were speculating about how to improve public participation in clinical vaccine trials (where getting enough people to take part has been a problem). One solution they thought should be considered is creating a situation where everyone is automatically eligible and would have to specifically “opt out” to avoid being a subject in a vaccine safety trial. Naturally, some antivax advocates got all stirred up about this and started loud bogus protests about the Government forcing kiddies to take experimental vaccines.

This “opt-out” proposal is another example of a dumb idea which will never happen, floated heedlessly.

Moving this topic to Great Debates since it’s obviously a very hot button issue.
The mods there can then decide to keep it or send it to the Pit (where it would probably also fit well).

If you see a GD thread that you think is stupid and distasteful, here are your options: rebut what people are saying with reasonable, civil arguments and cites, or don’t participate. Threadshitting and is not allowed no matter how stupid you think the discussion is, and your crudeness isn’t helping either. You can do this kind of thing in the Pit, but not in any other forum.

Well now, here’s an interesting twist!

It is because the people who’ve advocated this are people who devote their studies to ethics at one of the most prestigious universities in the world. If anything else it shows how degenerate and insane and absurd many supposed intellectuals are.

Considering the journal said it would be willing to publish anything, would they mind publishing say an article that argued certain races were superior genetically to others? Or would the PC Polizei consider this blasphemy while considering infanticide a legitimate question?

If DNA packed into a cell is a life then I’m a mass murderer every time I spit on the side walk. I don’t think anyone would ever argue a baby born premature and alive can ethically be thrown into a dumpster.

So somewhere in between theres got to be a common ground.

What “crudeness”? And junior modding a mod is not usually the wisest course of action.

Cite? No point getting your panties in a bunch before you find out what the institutional affiliations actually are in this case, sport.

So you’re totally off base in describing these authors as “people who devote their studies to ethics at one of the most prestigious universities in the world”. Rather, they appear to be some sort of junior researchers—apparently neither of them has an advanced degree—who have published a paper about a controversial idea. Big whoop.

But, of course, even the most tenuous association with a major university is enough to make some people feel justified in saying “OMG ALL THE BOFFINS @ OXFORD WANT 2 KILL BAYBEEZ!!!11!!!”

One of the best things about an article like this (only reading from the blurbs posted here) - is it opens up debate and conversation.

Disagreement and discourse is what civilized society needs to better itself - did one ever think that they took the ‘philosophical’ argument here simply to show that the pro-choice decision about pre-birth abortions and ‘personhood’ was also on an ethical knifes edge?

I often find that the best thing I can do is disagree with someone else’s position - as that generally means that I am able to think for myself - right or wrong, at least I am thinking.

I seriously doubt that the author’s were actually supporting the idea of killing newborns as anything other than a ‘you really ought to think about what you are thinking’ - if I were to hazard a guess - they are likely pro-life and want people to realize how ‘ridiculous’ the ‘personhood’ argument really is - as many on this thread have already stated.

Oh by the way, here’s the abstract of the actual paper. To correct one of my previous statements, at least the second author (Minerva) does apparently have the title “Doctor”.

They’re both based in Melbourne, though, not Oxford.

The list of ethical quandaries meant to take ostensive justifications and demonstrate their absurdity seems to have a long history, beginning with the idea that the modus tollens is a valid argument. People who enjoy philosophy are also not above trolling. If one can troll while using a hidden modus tollens, all the better.

In some war torn regions, this would be the safest (for the mom) way to abort a rape baby. Rape victims’ babies pay the price of war

The thread was in MPSIMS (the post before your is a mod note from Idle Thoughts announcing the thread move. I didn’t suggest the topic is stupid or distasteful. I asked why I should care about the opinion of the ethicists since Terr provided little in the way of explanation, and you picked up on the sarcasm I was using. If you want to complain about a months-old moderator decision, send me a private message or start a thread in ATMB. In the mean time, don’t junior moderate.

And here’s the whole thing.

Im not even a radical in your face dont kill babies type, but anyone advocating killing newborns should be executed. I know that doesnt sit well with liberals but meh, dont care. (just as one poster said they dont care if babies are killed or not - a moderator no less. really you dont know why it’s important or why you should care?)

Pathetic that a few people even weight in with their support in the mirage of feigned shrugs. If you dont care, you would have fit right in with the Nazis. If you do care but wont take a strong stand against it, you’re worthless.

To me it reads as an argument for the importance of the fetus, essentially arguing an equivalent between fetus and newborn.

While supposedly arguing that this makes post-birth abortion OK, its really arguing that pre-birth abortion isnt.

From the conclusion:

“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.”

I dont think many people argue for abortion on those grounds alone. Reads to me as a bit of a straw argument a pro-life type might make, but maybe Im being too cynical.

Otara

Agreed. But there ARE other justifications for abortion (not for this hypothetical of infanticide, imo, ALTHOUGH, I think allowing a severely premature /miscarried or fatally deformed newborn to die naturally IS often the most ethical/moral course, as opposed to using heroic measures to keep them alive with severe, lifelong disabilities due to their prematurity or prolong their suffering needlessly).

For instance, I’ve had one abortion in my life. Not ashamed to share; I have NEVER doubted it was in the best interests of everyone, including the potential child.

At the time that I became accidentally pregnant despite the use of birth control, my late husband was already disabled with complications from a genetic condition (diagnosed late in life) which would kill him at 45 a few years later.

By this time we knew that the developing embryo (5 wks when terminated) had a 50/50 chance of inheriting the same genetic defect, possibly in a more severe form (both our other kids tested free of the condition, as it turned out. Neither of us felt like pressing our luck. Much less say that of the potential person involved.)

I was, at 39 or so (I disremember exactly and am not going to do the math) past my “sell-by date” as far as having babies goes, plus, my health wasn’t so hot at the time either (stress, overweight, facing the impending, inevitable death of my partner as were the kids).

I was the sole provider (along with the paltry disability benefits), running my own business during hard economic times, and we were on food stamps. Struggling to support our two existing children.
Many years before this, I knew another woman who opted to abort for similar reasons. She had two existing children, including a son with hemophilia (which the embryo had a 50/50 chance of inheriting) and AIDS (contracted from a blood transfusion). She and her husband struggled, both working full-time, to make ends meet with all the medical bills and other living expenses AND with being there for their existing kids during a horrible time. With both her past pregnancies, she’d been on full bed-rest for several months (and knew another would entail the same restrictions).

She was a friend and co-worker who wept on my shoulder over her difficult decision to do what she KNEW to be in the best interests of everyone (but she was at an age, like me, years later, where she realized this was likely her last chance to have another baby).
At any rate, it just really pisses me OFF when people characterize a woman’s decision to abort as “selfish” or “casual” or based only on her right to refuse to harbor a “parasite” against her will. Sure, she HAS that right, and I defend it. But there ARE other rationales which, imo, are equally valid. There are so many “gray areas” when it comes to ethics and morality…seldom is it as black and white as some would have us believe.

Edited to add: just to clarify, I was not lumping the poster I replied to in with those people who characterize abortion in such a way.