Post Birth Abortion.

[Visaki]

I'd guess the more religious people would like the term "post-birth abortion" since it makes about as much sense as another term they like, "life after death".

I suppose "post-birth abortion" is more useful to the anti-abortion lot than the correct word for this kinda of thing, which is non-consenting euthanasia (or murder, if you like that better but that's a whole another semantic ballgame). After all it confuses the well accepted fact of atheists killing babies to the as well accepted fact of atheists killing fetuses and can be used for the abortion = murder argument.

 

[Andiferous]

Alexander:

The reason the distinction is useful is that "murder" is negatively charged, and is usually meant in the sense of the immoral act. When it is questionable whether the act is immoral, it makes sense to use a different word, such as "euthanasia", "mercy-killing", or in this case, "post-birth abortion" (Presumably this is how "euthanasia" became a word in the first place). I also think that even though the expression "post-birth abortion" is technically wrong (an abortion is by definition performed on foeti), it's nevertheless pretty clear and unambiguous.

Yes, I agree that you are technically right in that all these terms are forms of "killing;" while "murder" is a loaded term for "killing" that doesn't quite have the same meaning. Meanwhile the term 'post birth abortion' is redundant and an oxymoron to boot.

I also think that even though the expression "post-birth abortion" is technically wrong (an abortion is by definition performed on foeti), it's nevertheless pretty clear and unambiguous.

I disagree here. We're in agreement that the term is technically wrong, and we're in disagreement that the term is pretty clear and unambiguous. If this statement were true, the disputed term would be concise, and not redundantly passive voice and contradictory.

I guess the more religious people would like the term "post-birth abortion" since it makes about as much sense as another term they like, "life after death".

I suppose "post-birth abortion" is more useful to the anti-abortion lot than the correct word for this kinda of thing, which is non-consenting euthanasia (or murder, if you like that better but that's a whole another semantic ballgame). After all it confuses the well accepted fact of atheists killing babies to the as well accepted fact of atheists killing fetuses and can be used for the abortion = murder argument.

Thank you.


[[edit: I was unhappy with a few wordy paragraphs and threw them out, but essentially, thank you for illustrating the conundrum of how to read this paper, and of how much sense can be made of it.]]

Within the paper, seems the crux of the argument comes down to definitions of 'persons,' which is hardly surprising. The subjective truth or falsehood of ones' definitions of 'person' render 'person' arguments unstable from either side. Until such time as this argument of person can be universally approved, the argument can never pass, and legal verdicts on abortion/euthanasia will probably continue to rely on other criterion, imo.

In a very ambiguous way, one's acceptance or rejection of the ideas within this paper seems hinged on one's subjective perception of personhood, so really, it could go either for or against. This paper is very wordy... and it doesn't seem to say anything new.

The fight over what constitutes a 'person' under law continues, and some definitions seem to contradict themselves. For instance, if definition of a person is someone 'alive,' the definition doesn't disclude animals, insects, reptiles, amphibians, plants, etc. Women in Canada weren't persons under the law until 1929...

I'm not going to read any more of this paper, because it gives me a headache.

 

[Nom_de_Plume]

As far as I'm concerned the term "post birth abortion" is a misnomer.
you can't abort something after it's already happened.
Not saying I agree with this concept of killing a severely damaged infant at all, just adding a bit of history to this particular subject.
I recall my grandfather telling me one time that traditionally that was the fathers' job. Once a child was born (back then all births happened at home) the child would be handed over to the father to "count fingers and toes" if the child didn't pass muster, the mother would be informed that the child was stillborn.
Not saying that it's right, but .... I do have two mentally/physically handicapped nephews (twins actually) One of them is cognisant enough to know that he's different and limited both physically and mentally compared to his peers. He doesn't like it, and has mentioned on occasion that he'd prefer not to live like this.
He's still quite young.... only 8 but I do worry about him as he ages.
I'm actually not sure how I feel about this subject, it's a very tough call...
But ,I definitely don't agree with calling it an abortion when it isn't.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

There seems to be rather 3 topic trends here meld into one. There is abortion, murder and mercy killing.
Almost everyone seems to agree that abortion in the very early stages of pregnancy is ok but killing a person is not. The problem is where you draw the line on the stages in between. When does abortion become infanticide?
Someone has put forward the argument that when someone develops a neural system then it is not ok to kill it because it can now experience pain. But if the pain is the criteria, will it be ok if we injected a neuro supressor which prevented it from feeling anything and then kill it? If that is ok then why is it not ok to do that with adults?
I think what we are missing here is the human perspective. What makes us be us instead of just a bag of meat.
My personal criteria is this, abortion is ok, but if the fetus can experience it is no longer fair game (generally this happens while still in the womb).
If you are a prospective mother, if there is no medical necessity, you wanted to get an abortion but hadn't got yourself the trouble to do it before then, tough shit! be responsible for your actions next time!

Now between murder and mercy killing, I think it is ok the terminate the life of an infant if all that it is ever going to experience in its life is suffering. Life can be extremely cruel, and we shouldn't unecessarilly cruel. It is sad that someone had to die, but there are things worst than death.
However if the child has a chance at a normal life, then it should be allowed, and frankly the parents opinion should never play a part into it.

 

[TheMissingN]

Alexander:

The reason the distinction is useful is that "murder" is negatively charged, and is usually meant in the sense of the immoral act. When it is questionable whether the act is immoral, it makes sense to use a different word, such as "euthanasia", "mercy-killing", or in this case, "post-birth abortion" (Presumably this is how "euthanasia" became a word in the first place). I also think that even though the expression "post-birth abortion" is technically wrong (an abortion is by definition performed on foeti), it's nevertheless pretty clear and unambiguous.

Yes, I agree that you are technically right in that all these terms are forms of "killing;" while "murder" is a loaded term for "killing" that doesn't quite have the same meaning. Meanwhile the term 'post birth abortion' is redundant and an oxymoron to boot.

I also think that even though the expression "post-birth abortion" is technically wrong (an abortion is by definition performed on foeti), it's nevertheless pretty clear and unambiguous.

I disagree here. We're in agreement that the term is technically wrong, and we're in disagreement that the term is pretty clear and unambiguous. If this statement were true, the disputed term would be concise, and not redundantly passive voice and contradictory.

"Post-birth abortion" is, at face value, an oxymoron, but that doesn't stop it from being a useful term. The expression "a toy gun" is technically oxymoronic, because if something is a toy, it's not actually a gun. But it's clear what's meant, and that's exactly my point.

You're telling me it's ambiguous and unclear (I have no idea what you mean by "redundantly passive voice", seeing as "abortion" is a noun, but maybe you can enlighten me ). I fail to see what's unclear. A post-birth abortion is the deliberate killing of an infant immediately after it's been born. I don't think anyone is disputing that. Of course there's a certain vagueness involved, such as why the child is killed and how old it is, but vagueness is just as present when talking about normal abortion. I would even go as far as to say that everyone in this thread has pretty much the same understanding of the term "post-birth abortion", and that this fact is precisely why a discussion could begin in the first place.

Yours, etc.
Alexander

 

[guttural]

I would destinguish between a person and human being. A person is a human being wtih a conscious self, the ability to percieve its own life as something to be valued, to be able to plan and so on. The mere belongingship to a certain species does not suffice to be granted a special moral level.
Well then. To terminate the life of a person, that means a sentinent being capable of the things mentioned above, against its will would be amoral. It would lead to a loss that person (not excluding non-human animals) suffers.
A being, that cannot coginitively value its own existence and can not have a conscious interest to continue its existence is not a person. Therfor killing that being would not mean a loss to any person. That means there is no harm inflicted upon anybody by doing so. It would follow consequentially that it would not be amoral to kill such a being, given the killing to be free of pain, which every sentinent being can feel of course.
The argument, that this being is a potential person is meaningless. Every sperm is at least half a "potential person", still masturbation is not considered genocide and rightly so.
A potential is not a reality. It is a human concept that merely exists in the minds of people. To clarify, I will use the following analogy. A person has two choices: move either to Canada, or to the USA. He/She chooses to move to Canada. Does it follow that he/she, by moving to Canada has killed the possible human being he/she might have become in the USA? No.
So, what follows from the reasoning?
1.) The killing of persons, belonging to the human species or other animals, is amoral.
2.) The killing of non-persons is morally acceptable, given that there is no unnecessary pain infliced upon this sentinent being.
It has to be scientifically evaluated when a human being say developes some kind of self-awareness to be able to formulate a reasonable law. Peter Singer proposed a 28 day time interval after birth. Something like that would be reasonable.