a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by b_b
b_b  ·  4430 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
After-birth abortion is not in any way a proper term. Abortion is stopping that which is in progress (e.g. "abort mission".) We can't now abort Operation Iraqi Freedom because hindsight made us realize it was a terrible idea. It is complete. Similarly, a pregnancy can only be aborted during the pregnancy. If it is after term, then by DEFINITION it is not an abortion. It is infanticide. I would disagree, but at least listen to the argument if the authors wanted to debate the morality of perinatal infanticide. They are trying, and failing miserably, to use semantics to put a dress on a turd. At some point, there needs to be a definition of what is legal and what is not. An early term fetus has no consciousness and no agency. A toddler does. Where is the line drawn? If we could kill a perinatal newborn, how about after a day? A week? A month? I don't know where the line for when an abortion is appropriate lay, but in my opinion its definitely long before birth.




dublinben  ·  4430 days ago  ·  link  ·  
It's rather debatable that newborns have measurable consciousness or agency. They're more helpless than newborn animals.

Ignore the semantic issue, and consider their actual argument.

riemannman  ·  4430 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I believe that b_b is arguing that the authors are twisting semantics disingenuously to make an argument that would be obviously abhorrent to most otherwise.

Also it seems that b_b has considered their actual argument, and has responded to it in his/her post with his/her concerns.

b_b  ·  4430 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Couldn't have said it better myself!

As to your points about slavery, sacrifice, etc. I agree that what matters is how our current society views moral matters, not what generations past thought. Despite what moral absolutists say, history is clear that morals are relative. I think most people would agree that at this time in the West, killing babies is pretty universally abhorred.

Plus, on the practical side, good luck getting any doctors (ya know, that whole "First do no harm" thing) to kill a healthy newborn. That would cause PTSD in even the most hard-hearted physicians, I believe. I don't know about Australia, where this paper came from, but pretty much every state in the US has laws whereby a mother can abandon a child at a hospital, or police or fire station, no questions asked.

It seems to me that even if one can construct an academic argument in favor of infanticide, there is no practical room for it in a civilized society.

riemannman  ·  4428 days ago  ·  link  ·  
When you say "Despite what moral absolutists say, history is clear that morals are relative." I would have to disagree. I believe that the only difference people can have on the issue of morality is how they define it. It's not too hard to come to common ground with everyone on certain fundamentals of what morality constitutes (except for those who believe in things like divine command theory).

Given that morality is a system of accepted actions that benefit society (which I think is not too much of a leap), one can objectively say that things like slavery, murder, and rape are wrong.

dublinben  ·  4430 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Our abhorrence of infanticide is very recent. It was an accepted practice throughout most of human history.
riemannman  ·  4430 days ago  ·  link  ·  
As is our abhorrence of slavery. Also, on the timeline of human existence, abhorrence of human sacrifice is recent too. How recent our moral outrage is to an act does not have any say on the merits of said moral outrage.