Is it ok to kill a newborn?

[Cyclone]

They're not "doing things to their own body" though are they? other people are - doctors, nurses etc, in a medical(that is the word I should have used) procedure

So your objection is that someone else assists them? If they were to take the drugs themselves (most abortions are not surgical) then you'd have no objection?

, and I dont see where the entitlement comes from to have this done in non-life or death emergency situations. It is abused as a form of contraception.

That may be your opinion, but you have to justify taking away the right to do things to their own body, not the other way around.

 

Aside from when a woman is raped, conceiving a child is a consequence of two peoples actions, and aborting to get out of it is immoral and should be outlawed.

So you think you have the right to impose your moral standards on everyone else. That's normally where pro life people stand.

[Harleyman]

What specifically in this paper is ludicrous or insane?

 

Or is it just because it's a matter of ethics, and therefore philosophy, something you're not too keen on.

 

Maybe she is a marxist?

 

Maybe she's two cards short of a full deck

 

Quote from OP "Francesca Minerva argues that a young baby is not a real person"

 

What IS Minerva's idea of a real person?

 

This is where "ludicrous and insane" becomes a part of the discussion.

 

Try arguing philosophics in a criminal court of law. Maybe Minerva will volunteer to step up as defence counsel

[Phanerothyme]

You massacre thousands when you cut one hair.

 

Hair is not made from living cells. Sorry, but I can't let it go.

 

On the other hand, a fertilized egg is a human being. It is certainly more human than a fertilised fish egg or kangaroo egg.

 

There's obviously no line that can be drawn between an embryonic human and a human without the necessity of moving that line about to accommodate local mores and technological support.

 

But if you consider the fertilized egg as a human (I do), then you must also accept that they die by the million without any human intervention to kill them or save them. The whole process of fertilization, implantation and gestation is pretty well understood. Very few fertilized eggs make it to the end of a successful gestation.

 

Which, in essence, is partly the point of the article in question.

 

Maybe she's two cards short of a full deck

 

Quote from OP "Francesca Minerva argues that a young baby is not a real person"

 

What IS Minerva's idea of a real person?

 

This is where "ludicrous and insane" becomes a part of the discussion.

 

Try arguing philosophics in a criminal court of law. Maybe Minerva will volunteer to step up as defence counsel

 

Let me point you to the conclusions of the article - Tell me which parts you think are wrong?

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.

 

Two considerations need to be added.

 

First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

 

Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

[Cyclone]

Her statements rest on the premise that a new born is not a person, it's not a position many would support.

[Phanerothyme]

Her statements rest on the premise that a new born is not a person, it's not a position many would support.

 

But if your disagreement is vehement, does that not mean that you consider the unborn child to be an actual person (rather than a potential person - a precise terminological distinction)?

 

If you do consider that to be correct, then what is your position on abortion, i.e. the killing of actual people?

[Cyclone]

I'm not sure why vehemence is required? I don't think I'm particularly vehement about many topics on here, it's just a discussion at the end of the day.

 

I don't quite follow your logic though, I say that there is a difference between an unborn child and a new born child. But she makes a false analogy anyway, we don't abort children a few days before they are born.

The development of a foetus is a continuum, the law doesn't deal well with that though so we have to draw a line before which we will allow abortion and after which we will not. In the UK that's 24 weeks, although the vast majority of abortions take place much earlier.

Since I agree with the law, I would say that before 24 weeks a foetus is not an actual person, and that after 24 weeks, as it is possible that it would survive (without massive medical intervention) it is now an actual person. Either way, a new born that has gone full term would be at 42 weeks, well beyond the line that the law currently uses to distinguish between not actual and actual.

[Harleyman]

Hair is not made from living cells. Sorry, but I can't let it go.

 

On the other hand, a fertilized egg is a human being. It is certainly more human than a fertilised fish egg or kangaroo egg.

 

There's obviously no line that can be drawn between an embryonic human and a human without the necessity of moving that line about to accommodate local mores and technological support.

 

But if you consider the fertilized egg as a human (I do), then you must also accept that they die by the million without any human intervention to kill them or save them. The whole process of fertilization, implantation and gestation is pretty well understood. Very few fertilized eggs make it to the end of a successful gestation.

 

Which, in essence, is partly the point of the article in question.

 

 

 

Let me point you to the conclusions of the article - Tell me which parts you think are wrong?

 

The wrong part is assuming that a newborn, breathing living being is not a real person which in essence is what she said .

 

There is no justification for terminating a foetus in a late stage of pregnancy (unless the foetus has been diagnosed as abnormal) let alone a baby that has started to breath by natural means.

By any definition that baby is a real and normal human being

 

These are the laws that are set in a society that claims to be civilized.

The kind of claptrap Minerva spouts reminds me in a way of what the Nazis believed in and practiced.

[Phanerothyme]

I'm not sure why vehemence is required?

 

Because a strong disagreement would indicate a strong agreement with the reverse.

[janie48]

S

Does that make it instantly and unarguably wrong?

 

Here's one for you - everything we know about how the human body reacts to low temperatures is derived from the most evil "nazi science".

 

Should we not use that data, expunge it from the record? Or should we (as we have done) use it to save lives? Even though it was unarguably wrong.

 

Some babies are born facing a short, painful, stressful life. Is it wrong to relieve them of that burden? It's a dark thought by modern 'enlightened' standards, but that shouldn't preclude a sane and calm debate without likening everything to nazis and everything 'nazi' to pure evil. No one is going to dispute the evil of the nazis.

 

But infanticide as common practice is hardly limited to mid 20th century German eugenics.

 

Not by a long chalk.

 

If you are referring to experiments on half starved weak individuals in concentration camps, yes i do have a view on that and the data you mentioned,but i don't think its relevant to this discussion. Since you have mentioned it though i would question wether everything we know about the the human body's reaction to low temperature has been derived from the source you mention?

 

Like you I would not wish to see any baby suffering pain, and would expect that to be prevented, but the article the OP refers to is not only about that is it!!

 

Yes i know infanticide has a history, and is practiced in some parts of the world,but in my view that does'nt make it right.

 

Since you challenged my post sometime ago.I thought you would have had the manners to reply.

[Phanerothyme]

Since you have mentioned it though i would question wether everything we know about the the human body's reaction to low temperature has been derived from the source you mention?

 

Let me rephrase it.

 

"Much of what we know of the human body's reaction to low temperatures …".