Post-natal abortion

#1
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

I can only think of one scenario where this would be even worthy of consideration:

If you give birth to a child who's standard of life is going to be pretty much non existent, and that child relies on medical intervention to keep it alive, then there is a valid decision to be made. Tough, but valid.

Other than that; these seem to be a pair of "philosophers" trying to make a name for themselves.

cnuts.

I'm hoping for some reasonable comment, so hope I have this in the correct forum. If not, then please move it MODs.
 

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
#2
Anything which happens to someone born alive is subject to existing laws. To kill them is murder. End of really.
 

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
#5
Anything which happens to someone born alive is subject to existing laws. To kill them is murder. End of really.
At the moment, yes. But these guys are arguing that a new born is simply a "potential person", much as a fetus is. If they can push this argument through, then where are we left? At what age do we draw the line?

I am, with common sense applied, pro-life by the way.
 
M

Mr_Tigger

Guest
#6
Regular abortion medical reasons and rape aside is fundamentally the killing of a human life form for your own conveniance. I think anyone that advocates that as justifiable needs to take a good long look at themselves. You don't have to raise the child there is always adoption, but for goodness sake you got knocked up and not getting preggers is not that difficult.
 
#7
Regular abortion medical reasons and rape aside is fundamentally the killing of a human life form for your own conveniance. I think anyone that advocates that as justifiable needs to take a good long look at themselves. You don't have to raise the child their is always adoption, but for goodness sake you got knocked up and not getting preggers is not that difficult.
OK, but ginger babies aside, these guys are saying it could be more harmful (for the the really loving mother) to give the baby up for adoption than to have it "aborted".

I'm finding it really hard to play devil's advocate here.
 
#8
Regular abortion medical reasons and rape aside is fundamentally the killing of a human life form for your own conveniance. I think anyone that advocates that as justifiable needs to take a good long look at themselves. You don't have to raise the child their is always adoption, but for goodness sake you got knocked up and not getting preggers is not that difficult.
Agreed.

However.

The article is speaking of post birth 'abortion'. If a child is so physically and mentally damaged then surely the humane thing to do would be to allow Mother Nature to help a hand and sent the tot on it's way.

Better to have a quality of life than just life.
 
M

Mr_Tigger

Guest
#9
I did not read the article as I think it is one from a number of months back that made the headlines so I am not sure what terms they put it in but -- I would draw a distinction between euthanasia which your wording suggests and post natal abortion which seems to suggest proactive killing. In some cases nature taking it's course might well be justified but that seems different from actively taking the life.
 

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
Now just to be specific, I'm talking about fetuses not yet born..If you breathe your first breath then you are alive and are human and subject to all the laws protecting you... and for the most part, they are remarkably efficient


Anyone who has an objection to abortion with cases of rape or incest, babies so deformed that they will kill the mother during birth, or babies who are non-viable and will die in the womb and need to be aborted.. needs a slap...

Apart from that I dotn wish to offer an opinion
 
#11
At the moment, yes. But these guys are arguing that a new born is simply a "potential person", much as a fetus is. If they can push this argument through, then where are we left? At what age do we draw the line?
About 17, I reckon. That should be time enough to asses whether they have anything to contribute to society.
 
#12
Lets follow the ancient model. Take new-born. Place outside. Come back next day. If still alive, the force is strong with this one, keep it.
 
#13
It is not a question of abortion / pro-life as such, but a question of how we view disability in a supposedly civilised society.

If a person cannot breath unaided, whether as a result of premature birth or the choice to smoke tobacco products, are we duty bound to prolong their life or allow them to die with dignity? Which is the more humane?

It is an important topic for the moral philosophers as they inform policy; if we are not moral, what is our justification for doing anything?

No human being should be compelled to continue with a pregnancy unless they are committed to parenthood. Abortion should be available to those who feel they need it. Euthanasia is indeed a slippery slope, but one which must be negotiated.
 
#14
Surely with medical tech these days doctors are able to tell whether a baby is retarded or not etc thus avoiding post natal abortion. If one gets pregnant through rape or whatnot they have ample opportunity to abort much earlier. Its not a last minute decission.
 
#17
If you don't want a baby... keep your legs closed.

Not difficult is it?
 
#19
If it`s not perfect then throw it off the cliff like we used to do in Sparta.
You mean leave them on the slopes, so that the Helots could take them as their own?

But we could throw corrupt politicians and those who were against our civilisation off the cliff...
 
#20
Yes but what have gingers ever done for us?
 

Similar threads

Top