Author Topic: why should the baby live?  (Read 254 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
why should the baby live?
« on: August 26, 2014, 01:08:29 PM »
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12033
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2014, 01:26:16 PM »
How is a new born baby not a real person? Because it doesn't have goals in life, therefore, they aren't people?

Ridiculous.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10923
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2014, 01:49:46 PM »
"After-birth abortions"? Does this person understand what "abortion" is? What they're talking about is euthanasia, which is a whole different issue.

Yadda yadda, "potential person", yadda yadda, adoption...
frank callaway, be honest, did you actually read what you linked to and if so, do you honestly not realize how stupid those arguments are?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2014, 02:06:39 PM »
"After-birth abortions"? Does this person understand what "abortion" is? What they're talking about is euthanasia, which is a whole different issue.

Yadda yadda, "potential person", yadda yadda, adoption...
frank callaway, be honest, did you actually read what you linked to and if so, do you honestly not realize how stupid those arguments are?

yep, i read it... did you?  because if you had read it, you wouldn't have responded with your first question.  so here you go:

"we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be."

the law would call post-birth abortion murder, but the authors argue that such an act should not be referred to as infanticide, claiming it to be morally equal to abortion; and reject the term euthanasia because they are not necessarily interested in the well-being of the baby concerned.
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2014, 02:09:19 PM »
How is a new born baby not a real person? Because it doesn't have goals in life, therefore, they aren't people?

Ridiculous.

-Nam

"By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons..."

come on people... read the paper... it's really not that hard.
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10923
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2014, 02:13:09 PM »
"we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be."

Newborns are not fetuses, just like fetuses are not embryos, and none of them are children. Different stages of development. By that logic, we should be calling seeds "plants", since they're "potential plants".
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2014, 02:27:46 PM »
"we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be."

Newborns are not fetuses, just like fetuses are not embryos, and none of them are children. Different stages of development. By that logic, we should be calling seeds "plants", since they're "potential plants".

wow, it appears you're having a hard time comprehending the position here.  the paper is not trying to argue that a fetus is the same as a newborn.  THAT'S WHY THE PAPER IS TITLED "WHY SHOULD THE BABY LIVE" AND NOT "WHY SHOULD THE FETUS LIVE"... 

 
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10923
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2014, 02:45:50 PM »
wow, it appears you're having a hard time comprehending the position here.  the paper is not trying to argue that a fetus is the same as a newborn.  THAT'S WHY THE PAPER IS TITLED "WHY SHOULD THE BABY LIVE" AND NOT "WHY SHOULD THE FETUS LIVE"... 

The main argument may not be that, but it's a stepping stone to the main argument, which is that infanticide should be legal where abortion would be legal as well. Slight problem there (aside from all the monumental ones): abortion is not legal past a certain threshold. If someone performs an abortion at, say, 34 weeks, as far as the law is concerned, they're committing infanticide.
So, either the argument is that infanticide should be legalized (which is absurd), or the person is serving up a double fallacy: strawman à la reductio ad absurdum.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2014, 03:20:40 PM »
wow, it appears you're having a hard time comprehending the position here.  the paper is not trying to argue that a fetus is the same as a newborn.  THAT'S WHY THE PAPER IS TITLED "WHY SHOULD THE BABY LIVE" AND NOT "WHY SHOULD THE FETUS LIVE"... 

The main argument may not be that, but it's a stepping stone to the main argument, which is that infanticide should be legal where abortion would be legal as well. Slight problem there (aside from all the monumental ones): abortion is not legal past a certain threshold. If someone performs an abortion at, say, 34 weeks, as far as the law is concerned, they're committing infanticide.
So, either the argument is that infanticide should be legalized (which is absurd), or the person is serving up a double fallacy: strawman à la reductio ad absurdum.

what...?  the authors are not making a legal argument here... listen, i'll try to sum it up for you (even though the paper is about a five minute read...) the authors conclude that the moral status of a newborn is the same as that of a fetus and neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person - so, the same reasons that justify abortion (medical, social, psychological and economic) should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12033
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2014, 03:53:54 PM »
How is a new born baby not a real person? Because it doesn't have goals in life, therefore, they aren't people?

Ridiculous.

-Nam

"By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons..."

come on people... read the paper... it's really not that hard.

I read it; I found it ridiculous. I also find your point of this topic ridiculous.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10923
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2014, 03:58:29 PM »
the authors conclude that the moral status of a newborn is the same as that of a fetus and neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person - so, the same reasons that justify abortion (medical, social, psychological and economic) should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

And what is the law, if not a justification for (sometimes even permission of) certain behaviors?
Seriously, nobody is that dense. Then again, you can't write for shit.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2014, 04:23:01 PM »
How is a new born baby not a real person? Because it doesn't have goals in life, therefore, they aren't people?

Ridiculous.

-Nam

"By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons..."

come on people... read the paper... it's really not that hard.

I read it; I found it ridiculous. I also find your point of this topic ridiculous.

-Nam

alright nam, i don't doubt you find it ridiculous, but the question is "why" is it ridiculous?  the authors are putting forth a proposition.  something for you, the reader, to consider.  the bonehead OAA (no disrespect to other boneheads) can't seem to wrap his bonehead around what a proposition is, just look at his last response - what he is unable to articulate is that law has a moral basis.  but what is that...?  what is the basis for moral objection to the authors proposition? 
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10923
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #12 on: August 26, 2014, 04:26:26 PM »
alright nam, i don't doubt you find it ridiculous, but the question is "why" is it ridiculous?

Aside from this simple equation below?
Embryo=/=Fetus=/=Newborn~=Baby=/=Toddler=/=Child=/=Teen=/=Young Adult=/=Adult=/=Senior
Nothing at all. It's certainly not an equivocation fallacy, compiled with the other two fallacies I already mentioned.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12033
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #13 on: August 26, 2014, 04:31:29 PM »
Because they are trying to align infanticide with abortion -- it's not the same thing. You know it. I know it. They know it.

Abortion isn't about killing "babies". Most who are pro-choice are not for abortions. A woman, just like a man, should have the right to do with their body as they please: it is THEIR body. However, after the child is born they do not have the right to then kill the child because of whatever reason (as linked in the article to abortion).

The article is nonsense; and it based it's opinion on plots from books and movies (like the twin baby thing -- that's from a fictional book and film, several perhaps).

I love how it was peer reviewed by...themselves.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #14 on: August 26, 2014, 04:45:52 PM »
alright nam, i don't doubt you find it ridiculous, but the question is "why" is it ridiculous?

Aside from this simple equation below?
Embryo=/=Fetus=/=Newborn~=Baby=/=Toddler=/=Child=/=Teen=/=Young Adult=/=Adult=/=Senior
Nothing at all. It's certainly not an equivocation fallacy, compiled with the other two fallacies I already mentioned.

are you seriously that much of an imbecile...?  (calling screwtape and graybeard) - the authors are NOT arguing that an embryo is the same as a fetus, or a fetus the same as a newborn, or a newborn the same as a toddler etc, etc...  this is an honest question OAA - WTF are you talking about...?  you're either being purposely obtuse, or you really don't "get it"... 
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10923
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #15 on: August 26, 2014, 05:00:48 PM »
are you seriously that much of an imbecile...?  (calling screwtape and graybeard) - the authors are NOT arguing that an embryo is the same as a fetus, or a fetus the same as a newborn, or a newborn the same as a toddler etc, etc...  this is an honest question OAA - WTF are you talking about...?  you're either being purposely obtuse, or you really don't "get it"... 

If fetuses and embryos are not the same as a newborn, then the argument is still moot. Also:
Quote
Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.
Amazing how you didn't reply to the part of the post where I addressed the above quote. Just incredible. I'm being sarcastic, by the way. You (theists) are like that. Ignore the forest for the trees. Gotta be, to defend a lie.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #16 on: August 26, 2014, 05:04:27 PM »
Because they are trying to align infanticide with abortion -- it's not the same thing. You know it. I know it. They know it.

Abortion isn't about killing "babies". Most who are pro-choice are not for abortions. A woman, just like a man, should have the right to do with their body as they please: it is THEIR body. However, after the child is born they do not have the right to then kill the child because of whatever reason (as linked in the article to abortion).

The article is nonsense; and it based it's opinion on plots from books and movies (like the twin baby thing -- that's from a fictional book and film, several perhaps).

I love how it was peer reviewed by...themselves.

-Nam

i never said, nor did the article infer that abortions were about "killing babies".  nor did the authors try to argue that abortion and infanticide were the same thing.  quite the contrary, they were very clear that abortion and infanticide were different, and the only reason they used the term "after-birth abortion" was to emphasize "moral status" equivalence.

they're saying that a fetus at 24 weeks, or 28 weeks, or 32 weeks is the same as a newborn at 24 hours, or 28 hours, or 32 hours.  so given that window, and the fact that there is no difference (or negligible difference) in cognitive development between a fetus in utero at 24 weeks and a newborn at 3 days.  what is the moral objecting to aborting or killing the newborn over aborting or killing the fetus...?  it's pretty simple stuff here people... i mean, is there something magical that happens when the fetus travels through the birth canal...?
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10923
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #17 on: August 26, 2014, 05:05:55 PM »
i mean, is there something magical that happens when the fetus travels through the birth canal...?

Some people consider it magical. Regardless, something important does happen. It's called "birth". We all went through it, even if not all of us remember it.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2014, 05:13:46 PM »
are you seriously that much of an imbecile...?  (calling screwtape and graybeard) - the authors are NOT arguing that an embryo is the same as a fetus, or a fetus the same as a newborn, or a newborn the same as a toddler etc, etc...  this is an honest question OAA - WTF are you talking about...?  you're either being purposely obtuse, or you really don't "get it"... 

If fetuses and embryos are not the same as a newborn, then the argument is still moot. Also:
Quote
Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.
Amazing how you didn't reply to the part of the post where I addressed the above quote. Just incredible. I'm being sarcastic, by the way. You (theists) are like that. Ignore the forest for the trees. Gotta be, to defend a lie.

i feel like i'm on a bad acid trip...  o.k. OAA you win...? i guess...?
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2014, 05:17:49 PM »
i mean, is there something magical that happens when the fetus travels through the birth canal...?

Some people consider it magical. Regardless, something important does happen. It's called "birth". We all went through it, even if not all of us remember it.

o.k., fine... i'll settle for your moral objection of "birth"...

that's a good one!
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10923
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #20 on: August 26, 2014, 05:27:00 PM »
o.k. OAA you win...? i guess...?

Here's what I read every time someone says that (to me or someone else):
"I have no counter-argument(s). I now know I'm wrong. However, instead of being honest about it, and to preserve my ego, I must make it look like you're the unreasonable one."
There are only three intellectually honest options in a debate: refute, accept, or say you don't have enough information to make an informed decision. You chose none of the above. I'll leave you to ponder what that makes you.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6353
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2014, 05:31:01 PM »
I think they should extend it to about age 20. As long as they are going to use an arbitrary age range anyway, might as well make it long enough to be useful.  :)

I support abortion because nobody should be able to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. If she doesn't want to bear a child, she should be able to stop the pregnancy. But once the child is born, that issue is over. And yes, as discussed in the article, it can be traumatic to give a child up for abortion, it can also be traumatic to be in a serious car wreck, get ebola, have your house repossessed, survive a big hurricane and/or be raised catholic. But none of those are under consideration as reasons to not do something.

If someone wants to argue that we should consider euthanizing children born with severe and crippling birth defects, that is a separate issue from abortion. And since this paper argues that it should also be fine to "post-birth abort" healthy children if nobody feels like dealing with them, then the proposal oversteps a line that normally only mass murderers get to cross.

When I support abortion, I am supporting the living person over the fetus. If there were a way to remove the fetus at that point and put it in an artificial womb and allow it to develop and continue existing until can live on its own, I'd be all for it. But if I am going to support the living person in the case of abortion, then I also have to support the living persons in this instance, and I cannot condone "aborting" or otherwise doing in a child after he or she has come in to the world. I, for one, refuse to label a newborn as less than alive or otherwise less worthy than a 10 or 20 or 30 year old.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4837
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2014, 06:12:57 PM »
^Right.  For me, the point comes somewhat earlier - once a fetus is viable outside the womb, even though it isn't fully developed yet.  I certainly do not agree with a proposal which attempts to equivocate the moral status of newborns with that of a fetus which can be legally terminated.

Offline shnozzola

Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2014, 06:23:07 PM »
Frank, are you a proponent of the death penalty?
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2014, 07:27:46 PM »
o.k. OAA you win...? i guess...?

Here's what I read every time someone says that (to me or someone else):
"I have no counter-argument(s). I now know I'm wrong. However, instead of being honest about it, and to preserve my ego, I must make it look like you're the unreasonable one."
There are only three intellectually honest options in a debate: refute, accept, or say you don't have enough information to make an informed decision. You chose none of the above. I'll leave you to ponder what that makes you.

I challenge anyone to go back through this thread, read my OP, the responses from OAA and my responses in kind.  Judge for yourself, the only thing OAA has contributed to is obfuscation.

When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6353
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #25 on: August 26, 2014, 07:51:38 PM »
I challenge anyone to go back through this thread, read my OP, the responses from OAA and my responses in kind.  Judge for yourself, the only thing OAA has contributed to is obfuscation.

Well then, you should send him a thank you note. You're so hell bent on being contrary all the time that I'd think you would appreciate those that, however loosely, meet your needs.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #26 on: August 26, 2014, 08:20:58 PM »
Frank, are you a proponent of the death penalty?

No, I am not a proponent of the death penalty.  Also, I'm not advocating for what the authors of this paper have put forth.  I find it interesting, the reasoning some people use in justifying tough moral questions.  For example, posters on this thread have brought up that aborting a fetus is legal and presumably a reason that abortion is a moral choice.  But state sanctioned execution is legal in many states, yet some people view that as immoral.

Edit:  f'n iphone
« Last Edit: August 26, 2014, 08:25:00 PM by frank callaway »
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4837
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #27 on: August 26, 2014, 09:53:10 PM »
I challenge anyone to go back through this thread, read my OP, the responses from OAA and my responses in kind.  Judge for yourself, the only thing OAA has contributed to is obfuscation.
I wouldn't have countered your smites if I didn't think the points he was making were relevant.  What you really mean by this post is, "OAA isn't following the script!" - that is to say, he wasn't buying into the ridiculous argument posed by the paper you linked, that you can 'abort' an infant which has already been born.  The fact that the authors even brought up "moral status", as if it had any real meaning, to 'justify' why it wasn't really infanticide is a dead giveaway that their argument is badly-reasoned sophistry that is based on trying to play games with semantics.

OAA's arguments are attempts to point out how badly-reasoned this argument really is.  You cannot have that, because by exposing how bad the arguments are, he opens you up for possible ridicule (since you presented them), therefore you must claim that he is trying to obfuscate in order to avoid that.

Infanticide refers to the act of killing an infant within one year of age of being born.  It has nothing to do with the infant's legal or moral status, and therefore the authors' argument is moot.  It may well be that they could argue in favor of it not being illegal or immoral to commit infanticide, but that would not change the fact that it was still called infanticide, and therefore calling it "after-birth abortion" is nothing more than an attempt to sidestep this issue.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12033
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: why should the baby live?
« Reply #28 on: August 27, 2014, 12:53:52 AM »
Because they are trying to align infanticide with abortion -- it's not the same thing. You know it. I know it. They know it.

Abortion isn't about killing "babies". Most who are pro-choice are not for abortions. A woman, just like a man, should have the right to do with their body as they please: it is THEIR body. However, after the child is born they do not have the right to then kill the child because of whatever reason (as linked in the article to abortion).

The article is nonsense; and it based it's opinion on plots from books and movies (like the twin baby thing -- that's from a fictional book and film, several perhaps).

I love how it was peer reviewed by...themselves.

-Nam

i never said, nor did the article infer that abortions were about "killing babies".  nor did the authors try to argue that abortion and infanticide were the same thing.  quite the contrary, they were very clear that abortion and infanticide were different, and the only reason they used the term "after-birth abortion" was to emphasize "moral status" equivalence.

they're saying that a fetus at 24 weeks, or 28 weeks, or 32 weeks is the same as a newborn at 24 hours, or 28 hours, or 32 hours.  so given that window, and the fact that there is no difference (or negligible difference) in cognitive development between a fetus in utero at 24 weeks and a newborn at 3 days.  what is the moral objecting to aborting or killing the newborn over aborting or killing the fetus...?  it's pretty simple stuff here people... i mean, is there something magical that happens when the fetus travels through the birth canal...?

Please with the rhetoric. We all know what it's saying.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey