Progressive scholars discuss the possible justifications for “after-birth abortion”

Do you understand that merely saying it's not convincing is not the same as actually having provided a logical reason for thinking it to be wrong?

I am left leaning, but that doesn't mean that this argument is "part of a wider package of the 'progressive or liberal'" as you put it.

I agreed it's not lawful - of course - but I am arguing that it is ethical.

.So, killing a newborn whose parents prefer it to die is not wrong because it does not violate any person's preferences.

It is not convincing for the reasons that I have already explained as well as being non-arguments.

This guy writes like and has the same takes as Lucifer (remember him?).

The only reason you gave was that it goes against the traditional view of our society. Then I explained why that is not a valid counter-argument. Society can be wrong about things and has changed its moral views many times in the past.

You are trying to defend against critique of the traditional view by merely asserting that it is unconvincing because it goes against the traditional view.

But the traditional view could be, and oten has been, wrong. So you have not provided a valid reason for finding Singer's argument unconvincing.

I can't actually remember them no. Perhaps they all blur into one in my mind! Starting to feel slightly bad that I might just be aggressively arguing with a 12 year old.

Killing and murdering newborn babies or selling them and eating them isn't a 'traditional view' but a reflection of society's ideas, views, ethics, science and law.

It is Singer and the authors who have not provided any valid and convincing arguments for killing newborn healthy babies.
It is precisely what I have pointed out to you several times.

I can't actually remember them no. Perhaps they all blur into one in my mind! Starting to feel slightly bad that I might just be aggressively arguing with a 12 year old.

I don't think we are arguing anything here.
I have already shown you that these arguments are detached from reality and if there was any merit in them then society would have implemented these novel approaches and adopted euthanasia of newborn healthy babies. But that's far from being the case.

That's all I meant by the traditional view. I'm not wedded to that terminology. My argument is completely unchanged if I were to use your preferred terminology instead. So, I will just restate it:

The only reason you gave (for thinking Singer unconvincing) was that he goes against the "reflection of society's ideas, views, ethics, science and law.". Then I explained why that is not a valid counter-argument. Society can be wrong about things and has changed its moral views many times in the past.

You are trying to defend against critique of the "reflection of society's ideas, views, ethics, science and law" by merely asserting that it is unconvincing because it goes against the "reflection of society's ideas, views, ethics, science and law".

But the "reflection of society's ideas, views, ethics, science and law" could be, and often has been, wrong. So you have not provided a valid reason for finding Singer's argument unconvincing.

Not really you have phrased them this way disregarding everything said so far.
You have to admit that there isn't anything convincing in the arguments provided in the paper.
Singer and the authors of the paper are the ones who haven't provided any valid reasons other than equating the the moral status of a foetus with that a newborn baby. It's rather absurd.

You may not realise this - but society often takes quite a lot of time to realise that it was wrong. Democracy took quite a long time to be implimented.
It took a long time for slavery to become illegal. What's truly detached from reality is the idea that you can judge the merit of an argument by how quickly society impliments it.

I think they are older but you are probably wasting your time. On his prior account, he simply argued in arcane circles ad infinitum.

Singer's argument is that what makes someone a person is having an interest in their life continuing, which requires the cognitive ability to concieve of their life continuing.

A foetus and a newborn are both equal regarding this view of the value of life, because neither have the level of cognitive ability required to concieve of and thus have an interest in, their life continuing. That's singer's argument.

All you can manage to say against it is that it goes against the "reflection of society's ideas, views, ethics, science and law."

Yet, as I have pointed out, the "reflection of society's ideas, views, ethics, science and law." can be, and often has been, wrong.

So you're going to have to do better than that!

It's probably a personality defect... but for some reason I enjoy this sort of thing. Plus even if they are unpersuadable, the optics are good.

Killing healthy babies for whatever reasons will never be implemented in our societies.
It's rather a terrible act that will never get political support or support from our society.
And yes societies can be wrong at given times but can also be right on many occasions so your argument that society maybe wrong in this case is not good enough.

These are nonsensical arguments I am afraid.

It's probably a personality defect... but for some reason I enjoy this sort of thing. Plus even if they are unpersuadable, the optics are good.

Speaking of persuasion. You definitely need better arguments than the ones provided by Singer and the authors of the paper who seems to be in a turmoil.