Infancticide as Public Policy...Now!

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by PoliticalChic, Mar 19, 2012.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,686
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,817
    What could be more despicable than the murder of a defenseless new-born infant? Now that abortions, pro-choice, laws that prevent care for babies born via botched abortions....
    ....now, there is a movement among academics to push for the murder of already-born babies.

    1. " “Partial-birth abortion” is a term invented by pro-lifers. But “after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:

    W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … 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. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.


    2. The case for “after-birth abortion” draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us, implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t.


    3. “Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life,” they write. “Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life,” such as “spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted” or “fetuses where abortion is permitted.”...They note that neural development continues after birth and that the newborn doesn’t yet meet their definition of a “person”—“an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”



    4. Personhood doesn’t begin until sometime after birth. Once that premise is added, the newborn, like the fetus, becomes fair game.

    5. Any burden on the woman outweighs the value of the child. Giubilini and Minerva note that philosophers such as Peter Singer have presented arguments for neonaticide for many years....“Actual people's well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of,” they observe.


    6. 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."
    After-Birth Abortion: The pro-choice case for infanticide. - Slate Magazine


    The article is published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. These are the same kind of professionals who designed ObamaCare/


    If you found it reasonable to vote for a President who subscribed to leaving new-borns to die....
    ....behold the next level of inhumanity.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2012
  2. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,013
    Thanks Received:
    6,877
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,882
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,686
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,817
    "... the earned income tax credit (the pride of Ronald Reagan), which has become the biggest and most effective antipoverty program by giving working families thousands of dollars a year in tax refunds."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/opinion/the-new-resentment-of-the-poor.html
     
  4. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,013
    Thanks Received:
    6,877
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,882
    Well of course Republicans are going to point to "cutting taxes" as a "success". It's the ONLY policy they have. Even today. Every policy is built around some kind of tax cut. Now that so many people are out of a job, how is that "tax cut" working out for them? If your jobs was moved to China, what does that "tax cut" do for you?
     
  5. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,686
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,817
    deanie...I understand your inveterate fear of Republicans...but don't you want to make a statement about the OP?


    I was shocked, and horrified at the idea of slaying beautiful new-born babies....I know you must be as well.

    Am I right?
     
  6. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    There's the key phrase. What are those "circumstances"? They vary from state to state; in California, which has particularly lenient abortion laws, abortion for any reason whatever is legal right up until birth. Any state that has laws like that is not going to allow infanticide under the same circumstances, i.e. any time the parents change their minds. Simply isn't going to happen.

    Nationally, the Roe ruling allows a state to ban abortion altogether (or to impose any other restrictions, or none) in the third trimester of pregnancy. States that do impose restrictions may allow late-term abortion in some circumstances, e.g. to protect the life or health of the mother; however, if the baby has already been delivered, clearly there is no longer risk to the mother's life or health from the baby's birth (either that threat has been avoided or it has already manifested, and in either case is no longer a "risk"), so allowing infanticide for that reason would be absurd. Again, no state is going to enact a law like that.

    The only circumstance I can think of in which infanticide might be justifiable for the same reasons as late-term abortion would be a severe disability of the fetus/infant such as to preclude any chance of a normal life. Medical conditions exist that are invariably fatal and result in extreme pain for the infant throughout its short life. Other conditions exist in which an infant is born without any higher brain capacity, essentially a vegetable that can survive only on life-support.

    In either of these cases, infanticide might be justified; however, I don't think approaching it from that end is the way to think about it. Rather, this would fall under the same rubric as termination of life support or assisted suicide for an adult or older child in the same sort of condition.

    While I agree that the mere fact of being biologically human does not constitute personhood, the position of these philosophers (assuming, as I really shouldn't, that you have quoted them accurately) has some ramifications that need some reconsideration, in my opinion.
     
  7. koshergrl
    Offline

    koshergrl Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    61,330
    Thanks Received:
    9,143
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +21,079
    Thanks for the new siggy, pig.
     
  8. nitroz
    Offline

    nitroz INDEPENDENTly ruthless

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,421
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Merritt Island, FL
    Ratings:
    +457
    If common sense was used....

    [​IMG]
     
  9. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,686
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,817
    In 2002, was the only member of the Illinois state Senate to speak on the floor against a bill protecting premature infants born alive in the course of failed abortions. He had argued that to give such legal recognition to the humanity of a bby born so prematurely would threaten the right to legal abortion: [W]hat we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided a- a child a nine-month old- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortion to take place.” OBAMA Senate Bill 1093 (Illinois)

    Barack Obama.....

    So, how do you think he feels about After-Birth Abortion?
     
  10. nitroz
    Offline

    nitroz INDEPENDENTly ruthless

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,421
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Merritt Island, FL
    Ratings:
    +457
    Dunno.

    Technically, he is in the right since he is was defending political laws on this country.
    The baby was it's own person then, there for protected by the laws and rights of this country.

    Agreed it's contriversial, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
     

Share This Page