Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The West is in free-fall. (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract - broken link)
"Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."
I would like to see the pro-aborts on C-D tell me precisely why these "scholars" are wrong. Thanks in advance.
It's a journal on medical ethics. Presumably it's a philosophical exercise. Have you ever taken a philosophy class? These kind of scenarios are quite common. They are meant to identify the maxims, as well as logical and emotional appeals and fallacies, that are typically at work in less extreme, though related, situations, such as first-term abortions.
It's an counterpoint to the "arguement from potential" and it's academic. Nobody is saying we should kill babies after they are born just because...
This is one of those ethical issues that takes things to the farthest logical conclusion and figure out why/where we draw the lines. Just as the prior paper did (not posted here but referenced below). Mental exercises that seek to clarify things.
Quote:
I challenge the idea that the argument from potential (AFP) represents a valid moral objection to abortion. I consider the form of AFP that was defended by Hare, which holds that abortion is against the interests of the potential person who is prevented from existing. My reply is that AFP, though not unsound by itself, does not apply to the issue of abortion. The reason is that AFP only works in the cases of so-called same number and same people choices, but it falsely presupposes that abortion is such a kind of choice. This refutation of AFP implies that (1) abortion is not only morally permissible but sometimes even morally mandatory and (2) abortion is morally permissible even when the potential person’s life is foreseen to be worth living.
The opinions of "most doctors" are constantly changing .... some might say "evolving" or "progressing".
At one time most doctors opposed contraception, but by the 1970s they were more enlightened.
At one time most doctors opposed abortion, but by the 1990s they were more enlightened.
Today most doctors oppose infanticide, but as the human race evolves and becomes more enlightened, tomorrow the termination of potential humans who just happen to be born alive will be accepted too.
And you are hereby invited to participate in this philosophical exercise.
Why not kill newborns? Is there a flaw in the reasoning presented in the abstract? If so, where's the flaw?
The whole basis of these papers isn't about "killing newborns", it's about the "arguement from potential". If you want to pay the money for the full papers, both arguements, and not just the abstracts we'd see it all written out.
However, if you just what posters to yell and scream from their limited perspectives, knowledge, and intellignece levels about "killing babies"...carry on.
The whole basis of these papers isn't about "killing newborns", it's about the "arguement from potential". If you want to pay the money for the full papers, both arguements, and not just the abstracts we'd see it all written out.
However, if you just what posters to yell and scream from their limited perspectives, knowledge, and intellignece levels about "killing babies"...carry on.
In other words, you don't personally have an argument against the ideas quoted in the abstract. Got it.
In other words, you don't personally have an argument against the ideas quoted in the abstract. Got it.
From the abstract and off the top of my head without a background in medical ethics....I am more valuable than potential life.
Your turn.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
