PDA

View Full Version : Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say



Rockntractor
03-02-2012, 03:46 AM
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent

1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012



The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “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’.
Related Articles


“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.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded 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”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.


Read More>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Society demands the existence of hell.

Apache
03-02-2012, 04:23 AM
i see the fingerprints of eugenics all over this. they haven't changed in 100 years...

Rockntractor
03-02-2012, 01:01 PM
i see the fingerprints of eugenics all over this. they haven't changed in 100 years...

This is the progression of liberalism, they won't stop with abortion and infanticide won't satisfy them.
It has been in the plan of progressives since the beginning.

Hawkgirl
03-02-2012, 06:14 PM
The depravity is strong here.

Bailey
03-02-2012, 06:17 PM
Ya and it wont be cool eugenics like Spaceseed (Kahn, star trek) but the bad kind like the Nazi's :frown-new:

NJCardFan
03-03-2012, 01:20 AM
What get's me is that most liberals are against the death penalty. Well, isn't that post birth abortion?

MrsSmith
03-03-2012, 11:18 AM
Strangely enough, every person on this panel managed to survive infancy despite severe mental issues.

Wei Wu Wei
03-03-2012, 04:23 PM
The argument is flawed. I wonder if it was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek jab from anti-abortion advocates.

Let's consider this. The argument supposes that abortion is acceptable because a fetus does not meet the criteria of Personhood which grant it the same human rights as everyone else. The qualities that distinguish a Person from any other living creature are generally considered the ability to communicate, a sense of self, consciousness, self-motivation, and the ability to reason. Because a newborn baby also does not meet these criteria, they conclude that it is just as morally acceptable to kill a newborn as it is to abort a fetus.

However, that misinterprets that argument for abortion. Even if we can agree that a fetus is not a Person in the full moral sense of the word, that doesn't mean that we have free reign to kill them for any reason. For example, it would be unethical to kill a dog purely for the sake of killing it, even though the dog isn't a person, we consider the dog to have some right to life. Of course, when a non-person animal's right to life conflicts with the right to life of a full-fledged Person, we always side with the person. The argument for abortion only works because there is an immediate conflict between the rights of the Fetus and the rights of the Mother. If we cannot consider the fetus a Person, we may still be able to consider it a pre-Person, or potential-Person, which certainly has some moral value. However, in the case of a conflict of rights between a pre-Person and a Person, it is the rights of a Person which supercede.

After a baby is born, there is no longer a conflict of rights. The mother is no longer having her body involuntarily occupied by the baby. At that point, we may still consider the newborn baby to not entirely posses the full qualities of personhood, but that status as a not-entirely-full-Person doesn't grant Persons the right to kill them at will.

AmPat
03-03-2012, 10:26 PM
The mother is no longer having her body involuntarily occupied by the baby.Do you realize how incredibly DUmb this statement sounds?:frown-new:
Do you think the mother woke up one morning and said; "OMG, I have an unanticipated, completely unexplainable life form growing inside me!!! :OhNoes: How in blue blazes did that happen?"

Novaheart
03-03-2012, 10:37 PM
The argument is flawed. I wonder if it was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek jab from anti-abortion advocates. .

Exactly. Self impressed pseudo intellectual British types proving that the Earth really is flat.

Rockntractor
03-03-2012, 10:58 PM
Exactly. Self impressed pseudo intellectual British types proving that the Earth really is flat.

Wow Wei and nova, we have the start of a think tank here. Tank may be overstating it, maybe a think drip.http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smileys-and-emoticons/confused/smileys-confused-735322.gif (http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/)

namvet
03-04-2012, 12:12 AM
the article is from the UK. they kill everything over there. well whatever

Lanie
03-04-2012, 12:23 AM
This is some scary crap. This is one of the slippery slopes I've been concerned about lately regarding abortion. It's becoming increasingly obvious that some do not know where to draw the line. People need to realize that life is precious despite having handicaps and despite the situation of their parents. FWIW, most pro-choicers would not be on board with this ridiculous thinking. I was speaking to a choicer the other day about my concerns about abortion and he said no way would it ever turn into this. Well, he's wrong.

Odysseus
03-04-2012, 12:33 AM
What get's me is that most liberals are against the death penalty. Well, isn't that post birth abortion?
Liberal compassion is reserved for those who don't warrant it.

The argument is flawed. I wonder if it was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek jab from anti-abortion advocates.

Let's consider this. The argument supposes that abortion is acceptable because a fetus does not meet the criteria of Personhood which grant it the same human rights as everyone else. The qualities that distinguish a Person from any other living creature are generally considered the ability to communicate, a sense of self, consciousness, self-motivation, and the ability to reason. Because a newborn baby also does not meet these criteria, they conclude that it is just as morally acceptable to kill a newborn as it is to abort a fetus.

However, that misinterprets that argument for abortion. Even if we can agree that a fetus is not a Person in the full moral sense of the word, that doesn't mean that we have free reign to kill them for any reason. For example, it would be unethical to kill a dog purely for the sake of killing it, even though the dog isn't a person, we consider the dog to have some right to life. Of course, when a non-person animal's right to life conflicts with the right to life of a full-fledged Person, we always side with the person. The argument for abortion only works because there is an immediate conflict between the rights of the Fetus and the rights of the Mother. If we cannot consider the fetus a Person, we may still be able to consider it a pre-Person, or potential-Person, which certainly has some moral value. However, in the case of a conflict of rights between a pre-Person and a Person, it is the rights of a Person which supercede.

After a baby is born, there is no longer a conflict of rights. The mother is no longer having her body involuntarily occupied by the baby. At that point, we may still consider the newborn baby to not entirely posses the full qualities of personhood, but that status as a not-entirely-full-Person doesn't grant Persons the right to kill them at will.

The mother was never having her body involuntarily occupied, unless the pregnancy was the result of a rape. Sex has consequences, and an adult is presumed to understand the consequences enough to be responsible for dealing with them. The primary consequence of sex is pregnancy. We can try to avoid it, we can use barriers, chemistry or timing or any combination thereof, but sex designed, first and foremost, as a procreative act. Sexual pleasure is a means to encourage this. Pretending that physical gratification is the sole goal of sex inverts what is truly important.

Odysseus
03-05-2012, 12:53 PM
The abstract on their page is chilling:


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.
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full



March 5, 2012 Article Advocating 'After-Birth Abortion' Mugs Liberals with Reality

By Bookworm (http://www.americanthinker.com/bookworm/)

Conservatives were horrified when the Journal of Medical Ethics published an article advocating "after-birth abortion" (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract) for handicapped, or just inconvenient, babies. They are correct that it is a disgusting piece of amoral analysis, but that is its virtue. As much as conservatives hate it, progressives hate it more. Many are convinced that it's a plant by the pro-life crowd. What progressives cannot articulate, but intuitively understand, is that by applying a reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) approach to the notion of abortion, the article forces pro-abortion people to confront the Big Lie that underpins their willingness to terminate a pregnancy, even an advanced one.
Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini have advanced a very simple proposition (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html), which is that only "a person" deserves to live:
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.
[snip]
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.'

In the authors' lexicon, to be a "person" deserving of life, one has to have a cognitive sense of self, akin to Descartes' proposition that "I think, therefore I am":
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.

Because babies lack a higher existential sense, they have no greater right to life than other biological entities without an existential sense of self -- say, for example, a cockroach or chicken. Downgrading a baby's status from "person" to something equivalent to a cockroach leads to the next step in the analysis, which is that adults have the absolute right to terminate this living, breathing non-person's existence:
[W]hat 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.

We've been down this path before. It ended in Auschwitz.
For the pro-abortion crowd, the problem with the article's analysis is that it reveals the amoral, illogical, unscientific approach justifying the current no-holds-barred approach to abortion. The article says a baby is not a person, but only a potential person. The pro-abortionist says the fetus is not a baby, but only potential baby. "It" (with "It" being the proto-person) begins as a zygote, then becomes a thing indistinguishable from a similarly situated chicken or a dog thing, and then slowly develops into a potential human. While in the womb, It does not breath or eat, nor does It think or have an awareness of itself or of others. It is a simulacrum of a person; It looks like a baby but lacks minimum human attributes. Being un-human, It therefore has no right to life.
Many pro-abortion folks are uncomfortably aware, at least at a subliminal level, that this is a Big Lie. With modern medicine, fetuses that have passed the 24-week stage can become part of the breathing, eating, communicating, aware, thinking world, simply by being born. More importantly, biological reality is that all fetuses, from conception onward, are nascent persons. Just as life outside the womb is a continuum from cradle to grave, with the soft, fuzzy baby becoming the desiccated centenarian, so too is there a continuum within the womb, as the zygote transitions into a fully fledged -- and viable -- infant.
The after-birth abortion article, by applying to a viable infant the same logic that the pro-abortion crowd applies to a fetus, explodes the magical thinking that allows people to pretend that the continuum of life begins at birth, not at conception. The article's authors are exactly right when they analyze an infant: the baby doesn't have existential awareness, no more than next week's dinner does. Just as the cow whose flank will one day make a nice stew doesn't stand around in the pasture thinking, "Yes, the grass is sweet and the air fresh, but tomorrow I die," neither does the infant think, "I really like this lady who's holding me in her arms and filling my tummy. I just hope she doesn't suddenly decide to kill me."
Both cow and infant live in a world of feeling. The difference is that the infant, unlike the cow, will eventually develop a greater awareness, one that includes recognizing its mortality. Because this existential awareness develops long after infancy passes, the article's ineluctable logic allows a mother to kill her four-year-old because he's too expensive or just because she dislikes the way motherhood suddenly has her shopping at Costco (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/magazine/18LIVES.html?pagewanted=print&position=).
Most pro-abortion people are not horrible human beings. Instead, they have been conditioned to believe that "a woman's right to choose" is a moral end in itself, and one that trumps all other considerations. To sustain this belief system, they must buy into the little deceptions that feed the Big Lie about a fetus's lack of humanity. None of these people, however, can pretend that a living, breathing baby, even one with a birth defect, is not a human. Reading an article that advocates a living child's death horrifies them. The further realization that the article repeats the same tropes that underlie their pro-abortion views is a sledgehammer shattering the cognitive dissonance behind which they hide.
Despite the ugliness of this post-birth abortion article, many pro-abortion people will continue down their current path. They'll castigate the article for being evil, either on its own terms or as a malevolent pro-life plant, but they'll still say that women must have the right to terminate a pregnancy if they know that they (or society) cannot manage the costs or inconvenience an infant will cause. If challenged, they'll have left only non sequiturs about "the right to choose" and "government off my uterus."
What makes the article valuable is that other people, more thoughtful people, people who have been affected by seeing sonograms of their own baby or their little niece or nephew, will find unsustainable the cognitive dissonance that the article creates. They will no longer be able to pretend that the fetus isn't deserving of life because it doesn't have an existential sense. They will understand that, if one accepts the article's logic, one has opened an easy pathway to killing any people who arguably lack self-awareness. It's a death knell for those with head injuries, advanced brain tumors, serious stroke deficits, Alzheimer's, etc. The next step is to look at an entire group of people and conclude that, by virtue of race, color, religion, sexual orientation, etc., that group lacks personhood and doesn't deserve to live either.
Whether Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini are the genuine moral monsters they appear to be or are skillful counter-propagandists, they have done the world a valuable service by focusing on the reality behind abortion's culture of death. It's not about "a woman's right to choose." It is, as they explicitly state, about whether a human deserves to live.
Bookworm is the proprietor of the website Bookworm Room (http://www.bookwormroom.com/).


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/03/article_advocating_after-birth_abortion_mugs_liberals_with_reality.html at March 05, 2012 - 09:05:04 AM CST

AmPat
03-05-2012, 01:19 PM
This is some scary crap. This is one of the slippery slopes I've been concerned about lately regarding abortion. It's becoming increasingly obvious that some do not know where to draw the line. People need to realize that life is precious despite having handicaps and despite the situation of their parents. FWIW, most pro-choicers would not be on board with this ridiculous thinking. I was speaking to a choicer the other day about my concerns about abortion and he said no way would it ever turn into this. Well, he's wrong.
Liberals don't believe in slippery slopes, what happened to you?

As for your choice of words, why is a pro-baby murder called "pro-choice" but a Pro-life person is a narrow minded hater?

NJCardFan
03-05-2012, 02:49 PM
The argument is flawed. I wonder if it was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek jab from anti-abortion advocates.

Let's consider this. The argument supposes that abortion is acceptable because a fetus does not meet the criteria of Personhood which grant it the same human rights as everyone else. The qualities that distinguish a Person from any other living creature are generally considered the ability to communicate, a sense of self, consciousness, self-motivation, and the ability to reason. Because a newborn baby also does not meet these criteria, they conclude that it is just as morally acceptable to kill a newborn as it is to abort a fetus.

However, that misinterprets that argument for abortion. Even if we can agree that a fetus is not a Person in the full moral sense of the word, that doesn't mean that we have free reign to kill them for any reason. For example, it would be unethical to kill a dog purely for the sake of killing it, even though the dog isn't a person, we consider the dog to have some right to life. Of course, when a non-person animal's right to life conflicts with the right to life of a full-fledged Person, we always side with the person. The argument for abortion only works because there is an immediate conflict between the rights of the Fetus and the rights of the Mother. If we cannot consider the fetus a Person, we may still be able to consider it a pre-Person, or potential-Person, which certainly has some moral value. However, in the case of a conflict of rights between a pre-Person and a Person, it is the rights of a Person which supercede.

After a baby is born, there is no longer a conflict of rights. The mother is no longer having her body involuntarily occupied by the baby. At that point, we may still consider the newborn baby to not entirely posses the full qualities of personhood, but that status as a not-entirely-full-Person doesn't grant Persons the right to kill them at will.
Who speaks for the child wee? What are the rights of the baby? It didn't ask to be conceived. Why is it liberals will line up 30 deep outside of a prison while Tookie Williams is being executed in hopes that his life will be spared but they will also line up 30 deep to ensure a woman has the right to execute her baby for no other reason than convenience? Can you answer me that?

Odysseus
03-05-2012, 06:14 PM
Who speaks for the child wee? What are the rights of the baby? It didn't ask to be conceived. Why is it liberals will line up 30 deep outside of a prison while Tookie Williams is being executed in hopes that his life will be spared but they will also line up 30 deep to ensure a woman has the right to execute her baby for no other reason than convenience? Can you answer me that?

In leftist eyes, a baby isn't a person until ACORN has registered it to vote.

Eupher
03-05-2012, 06:16 PM
The argument is flawed. I wonder if it was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek jab from anti-abortion advocates.

Let's consider this. The argument supposes that abortion is acceptable because a fetus does not meet the criteria of Personhood which grant it the same human rights as everyone else. The qualities that distinguish a Person from any other living creature are generally considered the ability to communicate, a sense of self, consciousness, self-motivation, and the ability to reason. Because a newborn baby also does not meet these criteria, they conclude that it is just as morally acceptable to kill a newborn as it is to abort a fetus.

However, that misinterprets that argument for abortion. Even if we can agree that a fetus is not a Person in the full moral sense of the word, that doesn't mean that we have free reign to kill them for any reason. For example, it would be unethical to kill a dog purely for the sake of killing it, even though the dog isn't a person, we consider the dog to have some right to life. Of course, when a non-person animal's right to life conflicts with the right to life of a full-fledged Person, we always side with the person. The argument for abortion only works because there is an immediate conflict between the rights of the Fetus and the rights of the Mother. If we cannot consider the fetus a Person, we may still be able to consider it a pre-Person, or potential-Person, which certainly has some moral value. However, in the case of a conflict of rights between a pre-Person and a Person, it is the rights of a Person which supercede.

After a baby is born, there is no longer a conflict of rights. The mother is no longer having her body involuntarily occupied by the baby. At that point, we may still consider the newborn baby to not entirely posses the full qualities of personhood, but that status as a not-entirely-full-Person doesn't grant Persons the right to kill them at will.

Let's consider THIS, instead:

The ridiculousness of your analysis cannot be overstated.

How does humankind acknowledge and accommodate the lengthy maturation cycle of human beings? Why and how should a human being have a defined sense of self at minutes after birth when it takes up to age 25 for most males to physically and mentally mature?

No matter how you slice it, murdering a newborn is murder.

Zathras
03-05-2012, 06:18 PM
Wow Wei and nova, we have the start of a think tank here. Tank may be overstating it, maybe a think drip.http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smileys-and-emoticons/confused/smileys-confused-735322.gif (http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/)

With those two a Think Petri Dish would be the most appropriate thing for them....shallow and full of filth.

Wei Wu Wei
03-05-2012, 07:40 PM
Let's consider THIS, instead:

The ridiculousness of your analysis cannot be overstated.

How does humankind acknowledge and accommodate the lengthy maturation cycle of human beings?

The issue of Personhood isn't the same as the issue of Maturity. A 4 year old child is in no way mature, but they are reflectively conscious, they have a sense of "I", they are able to communicate, they are able to think, they are able to feel emotions more complex than simple hunger or pain.




Why and how should a human being have a defined sense of self at minutes after birth when it takes up to age 25 for most males to physically and mentally mature?

There is no why or how. They simply do not have self-consciousness to any degree at that age.

Arroyo_Doble
03-05-2012, 07:55 PM
...

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.

I do therefore humbly offer it to publick consideration, that of the hundred and twenty thousand children, already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle, or swine, and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore, one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in sale to the persons of quality and fortune, through the kingdom, always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump, and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends, and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

I have reckoned upon a medium, that a child just born will weigh 12 pounds, and in a solar year, if tolerably nursed, encreaseth to 28 pounds.

I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.

...


A Modest Proposal (http://www.victorianweb.org/previctorian/swift/modest.html)

Madisonian
03-05-2012, 07:59 PM
I remember when this was a joke...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAFg4zY2itg

Odysseus
03-05-2012, 11:48 PM
The issue of Personhood isn't the same as the issue of Maturity. A 4 year old child is in no way mature, but they are reflectively conscious, they have a sense of "I", they are able to communicate, they are able to think, they are able to feel emotions more complex than simple hunger or pain.

There is no why or how. They simply do not have self-consciousness to any degree at that age.

One of the unique things about humans is that we take longer than animals to function in the world. A newborn colt can stand within minutes of birth. Cats and Dogs are weaned within weeks of birth, and are fully grown within a year. But people don't take our first steps until we're a year old, we don't talk until well after that, and we spend years learning to coordinate, to reason, to mature.

The reason for this is the unique nature of human cranial development. A fully-formed human brain, and the skull around it are too large to travel the birth canal, so we are born before our brains are completely formed. Our heads grow for years after birth, and we develop quickly, but not as quickly as animals. We aren't fully realized human beings, by the definition of this article, for years after our births. By the logic of these "experts", my four-year-old and my eight-year-old daughters don't meet the criteria for personhood, and can be put down with impunity. It's a monstrous, evil and disgusting thought, but it's what passes for morality among the intellectual elites. It's also the logical culmination of abortion. After all, what's the difference between a third trimester fetus that has been pulled partially out of the womb and murdered before it sees the light of day, and a fetus that takes its first breath? Instead of life being sacred, it's just a commodity that has no value unless somebody cares enough not to have it snuffed out. The life of a child is worth less than the convenience of the mother, who has the power of life and death, and is encouraged by the hateful, bitter crones of the left to choose death. It's all just part of the same continuum of death, a road that led from Margaret Sanger to Josef Megele and back.



...

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.

I do therefore humbly offer it to publick consideration, that of the hundred and twenty thousand children, already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle, or swine, and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore, one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in sale to the persons of quality and fortune, through the kingdom, always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump, and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends, and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

I have reckoned upon a medium, that a child just born will weigh 12 pounds, and in a solar year, if tolerably nursed, encreaseth to 28 pounds.

I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.

...


A Modest Proposal (http://www.victorianweb.org/previctorian/swift/modest.html)

You found that rather swiftly... :single_eye:

Rockntractor
03-06-2012, 12:29 AM
One of the unique things about humans is that we take longer than animals to function in the world. A newborn colt can stand within minutes of birth. Cats and Dogs are weaned within weeks of birth, and are fully grown within a year. But people don't take our first steps until we're a year old, we don't talk until well after that, and we spend years learning to coordinate, to reason, to mature.

The reason for this is the unique nature of human cranial development. A fully-formed human brain, and the skull around it are too large to travel the birth canal, so we are born before our brains are completely formed. Our heads grow for years after birth, and we develop quickly, but not as quickly as animals. We aren't fully realized human beings, by the definition of this article, for years after our births. By the logic of these "experts", my four-year-old and my eight-year-old daughters don't meet the criteria for personhood, and can be put down with impunity. It's a monstrous, evil and disgusting thought, but it's what passes for morality among the intellectual elites. It's also the logical culmination of abortion. After all, what's the difference between a third trimester fetus that has been pulled partially out of the womb and murdered before it sees the light of day, and a fetus that takes its first breath? Instead of life being sacred, it's just a commodity that has no value unless somebody cares enough not to have it snuffed out. The life of a child is worth less than the convenience of the mother, who has the power of life and death, and is encouraged by the hateful, bitter crones of the left to choose death. It's all just part of the same continuum of death, a road that led from Margaret Sanger to Josef Megele and back.



You found that rather swiftly... :single_eye:

For someone that makes the claim that he is pro life he puts an awful lot of effort into mocking those that wish to protect it.

NJCardFan
03-06-2012, 12:56 AM
In leftist eyes, a baby isn't a person until ACORN has registered it to vote.

You say this as if it matters that the person is living, dead, or old enough to vote. :cool:

Arroyo_Doble
03-06-2012, 10:39 AM
You found that rather swiftly... :single_eye:

The story is so appalling that satire has to be the explanation.

DumbAss Tanker
03-06-2012, 12:13 PM
This is a thought process that leads very quickly to euthenasia for the low-functioning of any age, with enough propaganda to prepare the way, like the Nazis with their slogans for the unfortunate such as "Leben ohne Wert" (Life without worth). Once society accepts that, then it is possible to kill very large numbers, because the needle on what divides 'low-normal' from 'low-functioning' has no definite red line.

Wei Wu Wei
03-06-2012, 07:33 PM
One of the unique things about humans is that we take longer than animals to function in the world. A newborn colt can stand within minutes of birth. Cats and Dogs are weaned within weeks of birth, and are fully grown within a year. But people don't take our first steps until we're a year old, we don't talk until well after that, and we spend years learning to coordinate, to reason, to mature.

The reason for this is the unique nature of human cranial development. A fully-formed human brain, and the skull around it are too large to travel the birth canal, so we are born before our brains are completely formed. Our heads grow for years after birth, and we develop quickly, but not as quickly as animals.

Right...


We aren't fully realized human beings, by the definition of this article, for years after our births. By the logic of these "experts", my four-year-old and my eight-year-old daughters don't meet the criteria for personhood,

This is where you lose me. People are confusing the simple sense of being aware of oneself and one's surroundings with being able to read or write.

The basics of Personhood according to this argument are basic abilities that humans have that animals do not, such as self-consciousness, some degree of reason, language, etc. It is true that a a newborn infant doesn't have these, but even a 2 year old does.


and can be put down with impunity. It's a monstrous, evil and disgusting thought, but it's what passes for morality among the intellectual elites. It's also the logical culmination of abortion.

Also, I disagree with the idea that it is in any way justifiable to kill newborns. The article is glossing over a major part of the pro-choice argument, and doing it so blatantly that it makes me wonder if it's just a parody.


After all, what's the difference between a third trimester fetus that has been pulled partially out of the womb and murdered before it sees the light of day, and a fetus that takes its first breath?

The difference is that a fetus is inside of a woman's body, and she has the right to dictate what goes on with her body. A newborn baby is not inside of her body, and her own personal rights still allow her to do whatever she pleases with her own body. Conservatives shit their pants if someone tells them they should eat more healthy food as if it's some atrocious violation of liberty, but they recognize no right for a woman to dictate what goes on with her body.

Now you will say, "but what about the fetus, doesn't the fetus have rights too?", to which I say, "yes, the fetus does have rights, but because the fetus doesn't meet the criteria of Personhood in the full moral sense of the word, it's rights must be superceded by the rights of a full fledged Person."

Otherwise, you are saying that a full fledged Person, a woman, has less rights than a potential Person. It robs her of her own rights as a Person to deny her the ability to decide.

Then you will say "well if she has unprotected sex she loses her rights to her body". However this argument doesn't hold up in any other situation. Is it fair to say you lose your rights to your home and property if you don't lock your door? Is leaving your door unlocked justification for someone to steal from you? If you invite a group of strangers into your home for whatever reason, and after they leave you discover some prized possession has been stolen, do you lose your rights to that item just because you let the people in your home? Consenting to an activity that may result in a violation of your rights does not relinquish those rights.This doesn't even touch on the fact that sometimes women use contraceptives which fail, and sometimes women are raped.





Instead of life being sacred, it's just a commodity that has no value unless somebody cares enough not to have it snuffed out. The life of a child is worth less than the convenience of the mother, who has the power of life and death, and is encouraged by the hateful, bitter crones of the left to choose death. It's all just part of the same continuum of death, a road that led from Margaret Sanger to Josef Megele and back.


Now you are arguing about the morality of the issue, as opposed to the legality. It's been well established in our system that morality and legality are not the same. When the two conflict, you generally have the legal right to do immoral things, so long as you do not violate the rights of another Person.

Morally, I agree that abortion is horrible, atrocious, sad, and I'd hope we could decrease the number of abortions as much as possible.

However, elevating the rights of a non-Person above those of a Woman in the realm of Law is extremely degrading.

Tipsycatlover
03-06-2012, 08:24 PM
John Holdren doesn't find children persons until they are two years old so it would be legal to kill them up to that age.

Odysseus
03-07-2012, 01:52 AM
Right...

This is where you lose me. People are confusing the simple sense of being aware of oneself and one's surroundings with being able to read or write.

The basics of Personhood according to this argument are basic abilities that humans have that animals do not, such as self-consciousness, some degree of reason, language, etc. It is true that a a newborn infant doesn't have these, but even a 2 year old does.

So, it's okay to kill a child up until she's two? At what point do the authors concede that someone "deserves" to live in their Utopia?


Also, I disagree with the idea that it is in any way justifiable to kill newborns. The article is glossing over a major part of the pro-choice argument, and doing it so blatantly that it makes me wonder if it's just a parody.

You really don't know the history of your own political affiliations, do you? The Eugenics movement of the last century (which, BTW, was brought to us by the Progressives) espoused "humane" elimination of anyone that it considered unfit. This included the "feeble-minded", the morally inferior, the racially undesirable (Margaret Sanger's "Negro Project" was a deliberate attempt to eliminate blacks) and, eventually, Jews. The presumption that mankind can be "improved" through scientific means is one of the conceits of the left. A bit of history for your edification:


Eugenics was wholly compatible with the progressive era's faith in science, the future, the regulatory potential of the state, and human perfectibility. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institution helped bankroll organizations that sought to advance eugenics. Among the more notable progressives to embrace the practice were the anarco-communist Emma Goldman, NAACP founder W.E.B. Dubois, author H.G. Wells, political scientist Harold Laski, socialist reformers Sidney and Beatrice Webb, biology instructor/atheist Edward Aveling, economist John Maynard Keynes, playwright George Bernard Shaw, World Wildlife Fund founder Julian Huxley, sex theorist Havelock Ellis, and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. Sanger, taking issue with the Church's view that eugenics was immoral because the souls of all people were equally valuable in the eyes of God, said:


“My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against the social welfare and race improvement. Assuming that God does want an increasing number of worshipers of the Catholic faith, does he also wantan increasing number of feeble-minded, insane, criminal, and diseased worshipers?”


In 1913, Brown University's progressive sociologist Lester Ward endorsed eugenics as a means of fighting “that modern scientific fatalism known as laissez-faire,” and of facilitating “the betterment of the human race.” “The end and the aim of the eugenicists cannot be reproached,” he expanded. “The race is far from perfect. Its condition is deplorable. Its improvement is entirely feasible, and in the highest degree desirable.”

Speaking on a related theme, the playwright George Bernard Shaw advocated the creation of a panel tasked with the duty of deciding who was, and who was not, worthy of being allowed to continue living. Said Shaw:


"You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself."



Sounds an awful like like that article, doesn't it? Sadly, Shaw wasn't indulging in parody, either.


The difference is that a fetus is inside of a woman's body, and she has the right to dictate what goes on with her body. A newborn baby is not inside of her body, and her own personal rights still allow her to do whatever she pleases with her own body. Conservatives shit their pants if someone tells them they should eat more healthy food as if it's some atrocious violation of liberty, but they recognize no right for a woman to dictate what goes on with her body.

The fetus is partially inside her body in the case of Partial Birth Abortion. Should it be acceptable to only maim it, since it's partially outside of her body? BTW, we don't have a problem with people telling us that we ought to eat healthier food, but we do have a problem with people dictating what we should eat.


Now you will say, "but what about the fetus, doesn't the fetus have rights too?", to which I say, "yes, the fetus does have rights, but because the fetus doesn't meet the criteria of Personhood in the full moral sense of the word, it's rights must be superceded by the rights of a full fledged Person."

Otherwise, you are saying that a full fledged Person, a woman, has less rights than a potential Person. It robs her of her own rights as a Person to deny her the ability to decide.

To decide what, exactly? Let's not descend into euphemisms. Be blunt. You are saying that she has the right to murder someone that doesn't meet your criteria of personhood (which, BTW, doesn't warrant capitalization).


Then you will say "well if she has unprotected sex she loses her rights to her body". However this argument doesn't hold up in any other situation. Is it fair to say you lose your rights to your home and property if you don't lock your door? Is leaving your door unlocked justification for someone to steal from you? If you invite a group of strangers into your home for whatever reason, and after they leave you discover some prized possession has been stolen, do you lose your rights to that item just because you let the people in your home? Consenting to an activity that may result in a violation of your rights does not relinquish those rights.This doesn't even touch on the fact that sometimes women use contraceptives which fail, and sometimes women are raped.

Once again, you've demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of property rights and contracts. The act of sex is an act of procreation. We can resist that, and try to pretend otherwise, but sex results in babies, and even if you take steps to mitigate that risk, the fact remains that it is an outcome that is not simply possible, but likely. Remember your little thought experiment with the storm? The real analogy is that you have invited someone into your home and contracted to permit them to stay, but then you have second thoughts. Their presence is inconvenient. You can't have as much fun as you'd like, and they cramp your style. It is at that point that a hurricane comes up, and you demand that the person, who has not done anything that they should not have done in your home, go out into the storm, without protection, where they will almost certainly die. Do you have the right to endanger their life on a whim?

Oh, and we've addressed the rape issue. Less than 1% of abortions in the US are the result of rape or incest, and the majority of rape victims actually choose to carry their pregnancies to term. But, in the interest of not offending your tender sensibilities, I will again concede that a woman who has been raped did not give consent and should not be obligated to carry the rapist's offspring to term. Happy?


Now you are arguing about the morality of the issue, as opposed to the legality. It's been well established in our system that morality and legality are not the same. When the two conflict, you generally have the legal right to do immoral things, so long as you do not violate the rights of another Person.
This is an interesting argument. Since the law may permit immoral acts, we should not attempt to base the laws on morality? But, if that is the case, then what should laws be based on? After all, the basic laws against murder and theft are based on the ideas that murder and theft are morally wrong. If we abandon morality as the basis for law, then law becomes a strictly utilitarian doctrine, in which the only criteria is power. Law becomes an instrument of will, rather than justice, and no person (or "Person") has any rights, just areas where the state, which has the preponderance of power, chooses to allow them. That is tyranny.


Morally, I agree that abortion is horrible, atrocious, sad, and I'd hope we could decrease the number of abortions as much as possible.
Why? If the fetus isn't a person, then what does it matter? Abortion is only horrible, atrocious and sad if it is wrong. Otherwise what's the difference?


However, elevating the rights of a non-Person above those of a Woman in the realm of Law is extremely degrading.

But defining someone as a non-person is just as degrading, and far more dangerous. Just ask any of my relatives who didn't get out of Russia before the Nazis showed up. And personhood is an extremely difficult thing to define. Certainly you can't, or you would provide a definition. In fact, before this goes any further, I'd like you to do just that. Define "personhood". At what point does someone become a person?

NJCardFan
03-07-2012, 01:36 PM
People like wee wee are amazing. Just listen to him advocate for the slaughter of innocent unborn children all in the name of convenience. However, people like him will line up from here to Kukumonga telling us how it's wrong to execute convicted murderers. The klaxon from those opposed is that there's a chance an innocent person could be executed. However, blind to them is that 100% of aborted babies are innocent as well.

Eupher
03-07-2012, 02:03 PM
The issue of Personhood isn't the same as the issue of Maturity. A 4 year old child is in no way mature, but they are reflectively conscious, they have a sense of "I", they are able to communicate, they are able to think, they are able to feel emotions more complex than simple hunger or pain.


You're looking at this rather clinically, Wei. Are you sure you aren't a Nazi? Dr. Mengele thought along the same lines as you're describing, with perhaps a little more interest in how his "patients" reacted to given stimuli.

I'm simply stunned that you or anybody else is even running down this line of thought. But I guess the eugenics crowd just happens to think this way and it's okay.....

The FACT that a newborn infant is generally helpless and wholly dependent on more mature humans for its basic survival DEMANDS that that infant be protected, nurtured, and cared for.

I really don't give a damn about the infant's supposed maturity level. Where's that damned "sarcasm" smiley when I need it.....

Odysseus
03-07-2012, 04:10 PM
You're looking at this rather clinically, Wei. Are you sure you aren't a Nazi? Dr. Mengele thought along the same lines as you're describing, with perhaps a little more interest in how his "patients" reacted to given stimuli.

I'm simply stunned that you or anybody else is even running down this line of thought. But I guess the eugenics crowd just happens to think this way and it's okay.....

As I said above, the Progressives were all about eugenics, and the further left you were, the more in favor of it you tended to be. The National Socialists were simply acting on the logic of their Progressive convictions. Wei doesn't like to admit that the Nazis were socialists, because it makes it awkward for him to argue in favor of socialism, but they were, whether he admits it or not, so he might as well admit it.


The FACT that a newborn infant is generally helpless and wholly dependent on more mature humans for its basic survival DEMANDS that that infant be protected, nurtured, and cared for.

I really don't give a damn about the infant's supposed maturity level. Where's that damned "sarcasm" smiley when I need it.....

To you and me, the moral imperative of protecting the weakest and most helpless is self-evident, but to the left, which sees itself as above such mundane moral considerations, and enjoys shocking us, such things irrelevant. To them, if protecting, nurturing and caring for that infant interferes with the mom's college schedule or parties, then it's okay to toss it in a dumpster.