Are you suggesting that such an argument is unnecessary because we all know why murdering newborn babies is wrong; or that such an argument is unnecessary because we all know that murdering newborn babies is wrong without knowing why?
I almost typed “…murdering unborn babies is wrong” because that’s the kind of thing anti-abortionists often say, perhaps with just as much conviction that it’s so obvious as not to require an argument. Even if pretty much everyone agrees about the newborn babies, obviously not everyone agrees about abortion; and if you could clarify why murdering newborn babies is wrong, it might shed some light on when or whether abortion is similarly wrong.
Well, whether or not it’s morally wrong, it’s certainly unnecessary. A parent who doesn’t want responsibility for the newborn has legal avenues to transfer that responsibility to someone else.
I believe they address that in the paper. Apparently they think it is a lot less emotionally damaging to the woman to kill the new born vs. adopting it out.
Interesting hypothesis. I wonder how they support it, or is it just assumed for the sake of argument?
The link to the paper is upthread.
That is not what they said. Here’s the conclusion of their adoption section:
I personally think that the entire section is lame, but your summary misrepresents their position.
I’m saying that we all know why murdering newborn babies is wrong and that an argument for such is unnecessary. Does anyone here disagree? Do we really need to form a syllogism to show why murder is evil?
It’s one of the first laws humans enacted thousands of years ago.
I agree that as a practical matter — if we believe that (say) 15-year-olds are generally not mature enough to vote but that 25-year olds generally are — we have to draw a cutoff somewhere in between. Nevertheless there might be a 15-year-old out there of sufficient knowledge and maturity to vote, and we only regretfully disallow it because it would be too burdensome (or too open to abuse, or not possible at all) to devise a method beyond age to discern whether someone should have that right.
However, the right against being murdered seems qualitatively different; if someone is unjustly disenfranchised because of her age, then at least she can wait a few years. Subjectively I just don’t think most people would be comfortable with a policy that allowed the murder of innocent persons for the sake of having a tidy cutoff.
Thus I still feel that this is an appropriate and useful issue to broach.
The overwhelming majority of persons don’t need to be convinced that killing newborn babies is wrong. It can nevertheless be instructive to figure out why that’s the case beyond having a gut feeling. And indeed: I suspect the authors of the paper believe it can shed at least some issue on the question of abortion.
We don’t all know that, as evidenced by the paper referenced in the OP, and by philosopher / ethicists like Peter Singer of Princeton. It’s certainly not mainstream, but there are absolutely people who would take exception with the notion that it’s axiomatic that killing a newborn is necessarily wrong. If you disagree, I think it’s fair to ask what gives you the moral authority to impose your beliefs on such people, since that question is routinely directed to pro-lifers. Why not just let them kill their infants, you can let yours live, everyone makes their own moral choices? I for one think it is an interesting comparison and would like to see responses.
And, BTW, I think there are logically consistent ones–e.g., the mother’s moral authority to abort evaporates once the body is outside of hers, but while in her body, she is the ultimate authority over what she will permit. I would disagree with such a notion, but there’s no contradiction there. But it will be interesting to hear from those–and there are people on this board who offer such arguments–who hold that personhood is a function of specific mental capacities, quite divorced from the “geography” of where the entity exists. Human entities lacking certain capacities are the equivalent of skin cells. Perhaps such people place that line at a different spot than Singer would. Why are you right and he’s wrong? Why can’t we all just decide for ourselves? That’s an interesting debate, IMO.
Sometimes I’m pretty dense at these things, but is this just a slap at the pro-choice point of view basically saying that if you believe that abortion is okay, then killing newborns must be okay, because we are just drawing a different arbitrary line?
And once we give reasons why murdering newborns is Very Bad, then we will magically see that those same arguments apply to a fetus?
Yes and or a zygote.
It should be noted that exposure, which is an “after-birth abortion” was the norm for much of recorded history.
For many exposure was moral but difficult as a type of “Trolley Problem”
Because it’s not for our benefit, it’s for the infants’. Their right not to be murdered should not be considered forfeit just because they had the misfortune to be born to moral degenerates.
What other abhorrent behavior do you suggest should we condone, as long as it doesn’t affect us? Honour killings? Sexual abuse? Selling their kids into slavery?
Way to avoid the question. Or beg the question, to put it more accurately. You needn’t condone anything. You just need to let others make their own choices, right?
Why is the esteemed scholar Peter Singer a moral degenerate? But to shine a light on the real question: why do you get to make such a call? If he (and others) have moral principles that tell them that infants lack the mental capacity to deserve “personhood,” why can’t you just let them make their own choices as it relates to their own infants, even if your own principles differ? You don’t want to kill infants? Then don’t kill yours, and mind your own business.
Man, you religious people, you want to force your views on everyone else. 
I don’t know about the guys who wrote this paper, but there are people like Peter Singer who really and truly believe that infants are inferior even to a pig or a chimpanzee. Jeffrey Reiman is another philosopher who argues that infants do not possess the attributes that would completely prohibit us from killing them, if you need another. It’s not a hypothetical belief, IOW.
You do not understand what the word “condone” means. Deciding you’re okay with letting them murder their children? That’s condoning it.
Because he says it’s morally A-OK to treat infants as animals, and that it’s A-OK to have sex with animals that cannot give consent as long as you don’t hurt them. It’s a defense of pedophilia in two parts, on top of everything else.
Because a decent person considers it a desirable goal to protect the weak from those who would unjustly persecute them. Whether or not it’s okay to murder innocent children is not an area where we can agree to disagree.
Insults will get you nowhere.
You just expressed the moral justification of every anti-abortionist, up to and including those who kill abortion-performing doctors.
And Stratocaster and Dr. Singer are justifying the pro-life charges that legalizing abortion will lead to toleration of infanticide and general return to morality fit for ancient Rome.
Because infants are independent beings. While I argue personal morality should not the business of the State, when immoral actions harm others, it is the business of the State and society and any decent human being to prevent or stop such actions. If you think banning or preventing infanticide is an example of religious fanatacism you’ve done more for religious morality than all the religious apologists around today. Perhaps you would think differently if your mother or father had been allowed to murder you while in infancy or Dr. Singer’s parents had been.
[QUOTE=Qin Shi Huangdi;14836477. Perhaps you would think differently if your mother or father had been allowed to murder you while in infancy or Dr. Singer’s parents had been.[/QUOTE]
Hey Qin, I thought that one of the commandments was to honor your father and mother, so how could a good christian question the decision of honored parents ? How could you not let them be “allowed” to make this decision? Would you just not honor them in this case, so then the commandment cannot work in this case?