FSTDT Forums
Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: Servo on March 02, 2012, 08:34:41 am
-
TWO Melbourne academics have received death threats after writing a theoretical paper that argues killing a newborn baby should be allowed in cases where an abortion would have been granted.
The controversial paper, written by Alberto Giubilini, of the University of Milan and Monash University, and Francesca Minerva, of the University of Melbourne and Oxford University, was electronically pre-published in the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics last week and titled ''After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?''
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/abortion-paper-led-to-death-threats-20120301-1u60a.html#ixzz1nxwSETHK
I'm quite disappointed, but not surprised, that an academic paper intended for like-minded individuals has been taken out of context by pro-lifers. I think their paper does raise an interesting point, especially in terms of ethical implications.
-
That's an... interesting article.
However, of course people see stuff like this and don't stop for a second to think maybe it's hypothetical before jumping to death threats. This is why I hate humanity sometimes.
-
At least it's logically consistent; a Downs-syndrome child, if they were going to be aborted for financial reasons prior to birth, doesn't become less of a financial burden just by exiting their mother.
-
*looks around* Yet I don't see a bulk of the so-called "pro-lifers" standing in line to take care of the "child"...again another great example of all talk, no action
-
So many death threats from the "pro-life" camp. It's almost like they're complete fucking hypocrites or something.
-
What strikes me as odd: in ancient Greece, and then Rome, "after birth abortions" were perfectly normal and accepted- by the conservatives of those times. Those who were more like modern liberals were against leaving unwanted babies to die. It's not "life" pro-lifers want to protect, it's tradition.
-
Kali, shush! You're gonna give away their secret!
-
What if such a thing was practiced and we knew what Rush Limbaugh would have become....
-
The editor of the journal made an epic response to the haters, justifying why he published it. You can find it at the original article.
-
Ok... erm... I'm rather against the notion of after-birth "abortions" for the same reason I'm against third-trimester abortions. At that point... that's unquestionably a living being, isn't it? That having been said, as grossed out as I am by the article in question... I'm not writing fucking death threats. The most you're going to get is a "what the FUCK" from me, because I have some fucking perspective and I know a random opinion article when I see it.
-
I'm going to agree with Eniliad. Unless there's a severe quality of life issue (child won't live more than a few days, or will live in constant pain), then they should have a shot at life. I mean, even third-trimester abortions I think should only be carried out when the mother's life is at risk, and after a kid's born, that rationale doesn't exist. If you can't take care of the kid yourself (not everyone is equipped to deal with a child with Down's syndrome or other issues), give it up for adoption.
Of course, I also believe we should have robust resources available for those taking care of special needs kids...
But yes, the death threats are stupid.
-
That little poll there is a prime example of a bad question. "Is the killing of newborns morally the same as abortion?" Now are you talking first-trimester or three-trimester abortion? Makes hell of a difference (for some people. Not for others, granted). Apart from being a open poll on the internet, this makes the results worthless.
-
The only people I've heard who say "the killing of newborns is morally the same as abortion" are pro-lifers.
-
I honestly think it is a very important question. While it is easy to say that after a kid with downs syndrome should just be lumped with the state one has to take into account the limitations of the state as a care giver. Further, children with defects given up for adoption to the state will essentially never be adopted as most potential parents want normal children, preferably white, very young and female.
This leaves a large number of people in the system that will essentially need to be looked after for their whole lives, and will never contribute anything. They will probably never form meaningful relationships and possibly wont even understand the concept of such a thing.
Other aspects to consider is just how large the populations are these days and how we desperately do not need more people consuming what is already becoming dangerously scarce resources. There really are a number of factors to consider when looking at the questions posed by this paper. We all would have a knee jerk reaction to killing a newborn, but perhaps that just might be the best option for all parties involved. Life is very complex and no single answer is appropriate for all situations.
-
Personally (and quite frankly, my opinion doesn't matter much) I think aborting because of Down's Syndrome is kinda... not right.
It seems like a morally wrong idea to abort a fetus because of a mental disorder, or a physical disorder (such as the legs not forming right).
Perhaps I'm wrong on that.
-
Other aspects to consider is just how large the populations are these days and how we desperately do not need more people consuming what is already becoming dangerously scarce resources. There really are a number of factors to consider when looking at the questions posed by this paper. We all would have a knee jerk reaction to killing a newborn, but perhaps that just might be the best option for all parties involved. Life is very complex and no single answer is appropriate for all situations.
Gonna have to take a really close look at this part of the equation at some point.
-
I'm pro death. I think abortion should be illegal but killing babies shouldn't.
-
So, you're part of the Regressive Party (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive) then?