Academics make the case for "after birth abortion"

[ßringer]

What is wrong with these people?

Killing a child. There are so many people in this world who cannot even have children, how about adoption for them? Killing a child should never be an option. **** these 'acedemic' mo****ers.

Viserys should have been aborted.

[NEETzsche]

just the logical extension of prenatal abortion. i didn't click the link but i'm praying it's a reductio ad absurdum type deal.

[Terrel]

Viserys should have been aborted.

I agree. He's no dragon.

[squealpiggy]

just the logical extension of prenatal abortion. i didn't click the link but i'm praying it's a reductio ad absurdum type deal.

No it isn't, unless you buy the "pro life" bullshit.

I'll reiterate: "Pro life" has nothing to do with life. The majority of people who identify themselves as "pro life" support wars of aggression and the death penalty and oppose universal healthcare and improvements to education.

Here's a handy test: If you meet someone who describes themselves as "pro life" then ask them how they feel about contraception. If they oppose contraception then you know you're dealing with someone who considers children to be punishments for sluts.

[DeadLikeMe]

Historically speaking this wasn't a common practice but has been socially acceptable in a few forms around the world (Sparta and more recently China come to mind). I guess you could argue this from a sociological aspect the same way you'd argue rape only being a crime because of cultural values. Additionally, consideration would have to be given regarding cases of severely special needs children or children whose entire brief lives would be spent in an increasing state of misery. I wouldn't be in favor of some "Soylent Green" type solution with unwanted children, but in more extreme cases I personally wouldn't have a problem with the euthanasia of newborns.

[res]

just the logical extension of prenatal abortion. i didn't click the link but i'm praying it's a reductio ad absurdum type deal.

Well that's what they're attempting .


Here is an excerpt.


“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.”
Furedi accepts birth as the first logical time limit, though not for reasons of fetal development. (See her comments 44 minutes into this video.) But Giubilini and Minerva push beyond that limit. 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.” Accordingly, they reason, “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.”

[res]

h


Here's a handy test: If you meet someone who describes themselves as "pro life" then ask them how they feel about contraception. If they oppose contraception then you know you're dealing with someone who considers children to be punishments for sluts.

This is mostly Roman Catholics, and if they wish to be Orthodox, i think they have no choice. Most non Roman Catholics (the majority of Conservatives) don't oppose contraception.

I'll reiterate: "Pro life" has nothing to do with life. The majority of people who identify themselves as "pro life" support wars of aggression and the death penalty and oppose universal healthcare and improvements to education.

The "Pro-Life" position is not actually about defending life, it is about defending the "right to life", important distinction.

[NEETzsche]

I'll reiterate: "Pro life" has nothing to do with life. The majority of people who identify themselves as "pro life" support wars of aggression and the death penalty and oppose universal healthcare and improvements to education.

"some people who believe in A also harbour ostensibly contradictory beliefs, therefore A is invalid." only that's not how it works.

[res]

"some people who believe in A also harbour ostensibly contradictory beliefs, therefore A is invalid." only that's not how it works.

Yeah, it's a version of the Ad Hominem argument.

[squealpiggy]

This is mostly Roman Catholics, and if they wish to be Orthodox, i think they have no choice. Most non Roman Catholics (the majority of Conservatives) don't oppose contraception.

I would challenge that. They have an issue with sex, more importantly with female sexuality. Contraception is apparently dangerous and leads to immorality.

The "Pro-Life" position is not actually about defending life, it is about defending the "right to life", important distinction.

Right to life unless you are terminally ill and too poor to pay, an enemy, a criminal or a gay.

"some people who believe in A also harbour ostensibly contradictory beliefs, therefore A is invalid." only that's not how it works.

How about this:

Person A says they are against animal cruelty so they don't eat meat.

Person A says they enjoy watching kitten torture on the internet.

Person A is not actually against animal cruelty despite their vegetarianism.

Not an ad hominem. Just exposing hypocrisy.