[Notethis]

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. 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.
[...]
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethi...e-not-persons/

[emi_sarb]

We already have after-birth abortions. It's called adoption.

[Notethis]

(Original post by emi_sarb)
We already have after-birth abortions. It's called adoption.

no that's called adoption

[OU Student]

(Original post by emi_sarb)
We already have after-birth abortions. It's called adoption.

Two different things - adoption is giving up your child for someone else to raise. Abortion is the killing of a foetus.

[from rush hour with love]

(Original post by Notethis)
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. 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.
[...]
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethi...e-not-persons/

What absolute scum. By the same definition they could justify killing off the mentally ill as well.

[segoviawoods]

Abortion is kinda beyond ethics. Like going to war and killing someone. You don't think about the rights and wrongs, you just do it and leave it to lie.

[Oppro]

Human rights kick in the minute a person draws their first breath. Given that when my daughter was born it took a good minute or so to actually get her to breath then technically if she were to be killed in that first minute her human rights would not have been breached. But would that have made it any better? No.

I believe once a foetus becomes viable, ie, were it to be born now it could survive, with or without medical intervention, then abortion beyond that date for any reason other than a serious medical need, such as the mother or child would die or live a life of serious pain were the pregnancy to progress, that it becomes wrong. I think off the top of my head that the cut off is now 24 weeks which I think it too late as babies that early can survive.

As for the article, the guy's a dildo and should be absolutely ignored.

[Psyk]

I'm trying to figure out if they honestly think killing babies is ok, or whether they are making a statement against abortion by saying that it's effectively the same as killing babies after they have been born.

[Philbert]

That's just infanticide. You should decide whether to keep it, terminate the pregnancy or give it up for adoption much, much earlier in the pregnancy.

[Notethis]

(Original post by Psyk)
I'm trying to figure out if they honestly think killing babies is ok, or whether they are making a statement against abortion by saying that it's effectively the same as killing babies after they have been born.

Publishing it in a medical journal probably means it's something more than an alarmist anti-abortion statement. And it doesn't suggest killing all babies. Only newly born babies, who are likely to be a burden on a family, and who, like all new born babies, have no self awareness.

[Psyk]

(Original post by Notethis)
Publishing it in a medical journal probably means it's something more than an alarmist anti-abortion statement. And it doesn't suggest killing all babies. Only newly born babies, who are likely to be a burden on a family, and who, like all new born babies, have no self awareness.

I hear this is how the ancient Romans did abortions.

[funsongfactory]

(Original post by Notethis)
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. 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.
[...]
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethi...e-not-persons/

I'm going to guess you're talking about Peter Singer here (cba to read the article), as he is an Australian ethicist who has compared infanticide to abortion. However, whilst this may seem abhorrent to many, I believe (from what I have read and seen of his works) that Singer is in fact mostly opposed to abortion. Furthermore he was talking about infanticide potentially being acceptable and comparable to abortion only in the sense that you can legally abort a foetus for a disability, and therefore, some would argue, if a baby was born with a hitherto unknown disability you should arguably be able to kill that child.

Not saying that I agree with this, or indeed that Singer does, just stating an ethical theory.

[PatrickD]

(Original post by Psyk)
I'm trying to figure out if they honestly think killing babies is ok, or whether they are making a statement against abortion by saying that it's effectively the same as killing babies after they have been born.

I've been doing the same. Disturbingly, the article explicitly states the former, saying the pair believe 'after-birth abortion' (murder) is acceptable in certain circumstances, rather than equating it to the abortion of an unborn foetus to highlight the immorality of both acts.

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by Notethis)
Publishing it in a medical journal probably means it's something more than an alarmist anti-abortion statement. And it doesn't suggest killing all babies. Only newly born babies, who are likely to be a burden on a family, and who, like all new born babies, have no self awareness.

There are a wide range of things you can find in medical journals. Where do you think the MMR farce started?

[drobinson]

(Original post by Notethis)
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. 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.
[...]
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethi...e-not-persons/

I had to stop when I read "Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life." -? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure the only qualifying factor needed to receive human rights is to be human? A right to life is the most fundamental human right. He rendered his own argument invalid.

A fetus is not human and thus doesn't qualify for Human Rights. Once it develops to a certain standard it is a baby and thus human. Thus it has met all the criteria needed to receive human rights.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by drobinson)
I had to stop when I read "Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life." -? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure the only qualifying factor needed to receive human rights is to be human? A right to life is the most fundamental human right. He rendered his own argument invalid.

A fetus is not human and thus doesn't qualify for Human Rights. Once it develops to a certain standard it is a baby and thus human. Thus it has met all the criteria needed to receive human rights.

Why isn't a fetus a human? Biologically, I'm pretty sure it's human. Considering you're disputing any philosophical definition then surely we should accept the biological?

[drobinson]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Why isn't a fetus a human? Biologically, I'm pretty sure it's human. Considering you're disputing any philosophical definition then surely we should accept the biological?

Its all dependent on what your interpretation of "human" is. A fetus, to me at least, represents the potential for human life (or becoming human) which I don't see as of the same par as a living human being. I agree that biologically you could contend its humanity (although from a biological perspective is an egg considered a chicken? Genuine question) but in an issue which is fundamentally routed in ethics I think the definition is much more subjective based on your interpretation of whether potential is = actual.

[Historophilia]

These guys are ethicists and not scientists so I'm going to go ahead and call their ideas a load of bull.

It's pretty clear that it's an attempt to discredit pro-choice arguments and push their own anti-abortion views on an audience.

[Historophilia]

(Original post by Oppro)
Human rights kick in the minute a person draws their first breath. Given that when my daughter was born it took a good minute or so to actually get her to breath then technically if she were to be killed in that first minute her human rights would not have been breached. But would that have made it any better? No.

I believe once a foetus becomes viable, ie, were it to be born now it could survive, with or without medical intervention, then abortion beyond that date for any reason other than a serious medical need, such as the mother or child would die or live a life of serious pain were the pregnancy to progress, that it becomes wrong. I think off the top of my head that the cut off is now 24 weeks which I think it too late as babies that early can survive.

As for the article, the guy's a dildo and should be absolutely ignored.

A minute fraction of pregnancies are terminated at this stage, and at this point it pretty much always in cases when the mother health is severely at risk or the child would be born either dead or so severely disabled that they would die anyway shortly after birth and in great pain.

The number of 'viable' fetus's terminated at this stage is essentially nil.

[Ashfully]

That's disgusting :|