After-Birth Abortion The pro-choice case for infanticide.

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Apr 27, 2015.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    Just when you thought the religious right couldn’t get any crazier, with its personhood amendments and its attacks on contraception, here comes the academic left with an even crazier idea: after-birth abortion.

    No, I didn’t make this up. “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.

    Predictably, the article has sparked outrage. Last week, Reps. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., and Chris Smith, R-N.J., denounced it on the House floor. But it isn’t pro-lifers who should worry about the Giubilini-Minerva proposal. It’s pro-choicers. 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.


    http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html
     
  2. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    And euthanasia.
     
  3. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,198
    Likes Received:
    376
    It is actually the very logical next step when you believe the child is not a human being unless the mother wants it. :(
     
  4. PreachTony

    PreachTony
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,910
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is not exactly a new school of thought for the left. DeCamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton, Dr. Peter Singer, has claimed that babies are not considered persons until after a minimum of 30 days post-birth. In 1979, Singer wrote the following:
    In 1972, a philosopher named Michael Tooley wrote:
    American University Professor of Philosophy, Jeffrey Reiman, wrote:
    Basically, any step they can take to reduce, by definition, the standing of an infant in terms of personhood...
     
  5. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    40
    Does anybody remember the cries of the moral element of this country many decades ago about the "SLIPPERY SLOPE" argument; and the retorts of the bloodthirsty left about the overblown and harsh rhetoric of this idea???

    What is sown shall be reaped!!!

    Same concept re: queers getting married, and we see how that is progressing! :BangHead::mad::tear:
     

Share This Page

Loading...