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 ...
If they move the age of abortion up to 78 years, I know of a perfect candidate installed in the Whitehouse.
#NotEnoughLampposts
The biological science is pretty much settled that the Zygote has unique identifiable human DNA. Of course many zygotes were destroyed finding that out.
Only when it is committed against certain demographics.
Heck even without the DNA....I knew as a teenager.....sperm meets egg = life
I think the entire ‘after-abortion’ argument is blown to shreds with the latest leftie lawsuit that alleges all living creatures have ‘sentient feelings’, including fish and frogs, and are entitled to legal protection.
So it follows that little tadpole humans must also have ‘sentient feelings’, meeting the definition of a ‘living creature’ aka little rug rat
Ping
why should the baby live?>>>>>>>>>>
C’mon! Give me a good reason! >>>>>>>>>>>>
Who cares if you rot in hell forever?
The devil wants you to get that pu$$y back in working order real fast so you can seduce as many men into perdition as you can and make sure they can never be a good father.
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.