Posted on 09/02/2021 4:41:33 PM PDT by MNDude
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.
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.
It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.
...
The fetus and the newborn are potential persons Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life ... 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 foetus 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at jme.bmj.com ...
People who would harm a new born baby are the ones that should not be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense... THEY should be aborted..!
Evil.
No other word for it.
If it is acceptable to kill a newborn child, is it any wonder that we will abandon our citizens to be murdered by the Taliban?
Procrastination isn’t a crime.
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.
morally... that word doesn’t mean what YOU think it means
Medical ethics. Now that is becoming quite the oxymoron.
That depends upon whom you are murdering.
Hydrophobia is rampant in academia ...
If they want to reduce the population nobody is stopping them from going first. A tall building or bridge is all that’s needed for them to show us how it’s done.
Evil.
Orwell would be proud of them all.
These people are sick.
In ancient times, you were allowed to kill a child up to the age of two...no questions asked. I vaguely remember this from my history studies....It was rough in ancient days.
Written by Satan?
“We take ‘person’ to mean 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. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons.”
And being unable to experience directly, the consciousness of any other living being, how do you determine that it values its “existence?”
You observe it. A bee will defend itself, as will a spider. An amoeba will seek nourishment. We infer — reasonably — that most animals experience pain and recoil from it. It’s the basic way nature affords them the means to protect their existence; relief from and absence of pain are valued.
An unborn baby will most definitely recoil from pain.
Finally, as to “potential persons” not impermissible to kill — virtually every fetus (potential person) will inevitably develop into a “person in the moral sense” described: one exceptionally, profoundly capable of attributing value to its existence. They will develop because some human being (usually the natural parent) enables that development.
It’s according to our nature. We’re not fish that lay eggs and leave them, because they’ll thrive as nature intended, without any nurturing.
Man is by nature a social animal. He requires and therefore values the existence of other human beings. If you chance to find someone who does not value the existence of an unborn baby, you’re not looking very hard.
Oh yeah. Not even recent. We have had the rants of Prof. Pete Singer here on FR since forever and his whole realm of speciality is supposedly ethics. Satans that is.
As long as the debate continues as to what point life begins in the womb...then the issue of taking the life of a baby will never be settled.
Nothing like rationalizing Hitler after the fact. How did society get so sick or is it inherent in some?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.