ForumGarden

I sort of think that this article was published sarcastically.

Journal Of Medical Ethics proposes that termination of a newborn is no different than termination during pregnancy for any of the approved reasons. The personhood of the infant is not established and termination should be accepted for any of the reasons abortion is granted.

(takes awhile to load) After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Gotta love it. It's too inconvenient to acknowledge objective scientific fact that life begins at conception, so people try to use false logic to justify an arbitrary point in development that feels more comfortable. Why is death so hard to deal with?

Accountable;1387175 wrote: Gotta love it. It's too inconvenient to acknowledge objective scientific fact that life begins at conception, so people try to use false logic to justify an arbitrary point in development that feels more comfortable. Why is death so hard to deal with?
Plus, bet your bottom dollar he has a book about to be published and need some advertising.

CONCLUSIONS

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for

the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an

abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of

the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has

any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the

same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the

killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of

a newborn.Yes .... IF.

Using that logic, it should be OK to off the kid whenever it become inconvenient to deal with, until it becomes capable of paying its own way through college.

Some species see their young as a food source.

It is stretching the argument for abortion to ridiculous lengths.

It is not an argument for abortion, but for eugenics.

Bruv;1387196 wrote: It is stretching the argument for abortion to ridiculous lengths.

It is not an argument for abortion, but for eugenics. :yh_clap And the man wins the prize!

Some species see their young as a food source.
Reminds me of a joke, Accountable. "Why do we boil water when a baby is being born? Because if it's born dead we can make soup."

The United States is one of two countries that has not yet ratified the international Convention on the Rights of the Child despite the US p[laying an active role in the drafting. The main stumbling block being the objections seeming to be that of some religious groups who see putting the best interests of the child first and foremost as interfering with the parents right to bring the child up any way they like and also some states who want the right to not only imprison children but also when deemed appropriate to execute them. The US is the only western nation that will try children as adults. The right to life does not seem to include being treated as a child unless it happens to suit.

AnneBoleyn;1387199 wrote: Reminds me of a joke, Accountable. "Why do we boil water when a baby is being born? Because if it's born dead we can make soup."


Thankyou.

As the mother of a still born daughter, yep, I howled with laughter at that one.

Please don't be offended, my dear oscar. Dead baby jokes were a craze once-upon a time. Of course it is gross & disgusting. I beg your pardon, just some sick humor.

I always enjoyed the Matt and Bob jokes, if we're going for tasteless.

Holy crap, I had no idea there were so many of them!

What do you call a person with no arms and no legs…



between two buildings? ALI

who loosens hex screws? ALLEN

on a tennis court? ANNETTE

on your living room wall? ART

-- what if he also doesn't have a tongue? TASTELESS ART

on two wheels? AXEL

stuck in a fence? BARB

in your fireplace? BERNIE

in your mailbox? BILL

in the ocean? BOB

in a stream? BROOKE

in a bank? BUCK

who is foaming at the mouth? BUD

in a sugar vat? CANDY

in a bag? CARRIE

who is a prostitute? CASH & CARRY

who has no head? CHESTER

who is on the edge of the green? CHIP

put through a meat grinder? CHUCK

two men with no arms and no legs in a window? CURT N' ROD

in a tiger cage? CLAUDE

hanging from a chandelier? CRYSTAL or TIFFANY

in your kitchen sink? DAWN

covered with oil? DEREK

a man with no arms, legs, head or torso? DICK

buried six feet under? DOUG

buried three feet under? DOUGLAS

when you push his head under water? DUNCAN

under a bed? DUSTY

in a bathtub? DWAYNE

covered with glue? ELMER

on hot asphalt? FLIP

in a sewer? FLO

on your barbecue? FRANK

with a flatulence problem? GAIL

under a microscope? GENE

in your spice rack? HERB or BASIL

flying over a fence? HOMER

under a car? JACK

in a coffee cup? JOE

in the men's room? JOHN

sitting behind a news desk? JUSTIN

in the ocean? BOB

under a steamroller? LANE

floating on a pond? LILY

on a piece of paper? MARK

on your front door step? MATT

on a stage? MIKE

a woman with no arms, legs, head or torso? MUFFIE

who is shaving? NICK

in a motorized wheelchair? OTTO

in a frying pan? PAM

between two slices of bread? PATTY

holding a coat? PEG

who feels practically worthless? PENNY

in a flowerbed? PETE

in a hole? PHIL

lying beside a carnival ride? RALPH

who is covered with sauerkraut? REUBEN

with a history of wheelchair collisions? REX

in a bank vault? RICH

covered with cement? ROCK

being stoned to death? ROCKY

who has been struck by lightning? ROD

on a hill? ROLAND

in a vase? ROSE

in a pile of leaves? RUSSELL

on a beach? SANDY

who is water skiing? SKIP

who is an electrician? SPARKY

in the end zone? SPIKE

being cooked by cannibals? STU

who can play 15 different musical instruments? STUMP THE BAND

in a lingerie drawer? TEDDY

who gets left behind in a restaurant? TIP

on the President's desk? VITO

given to you by a deceased uncle? WILL

in an arid desert? WILT

When I started reading it, I thought it was a really twisted campaign to argue against abortion by taking abortion rights to the extreme. I'm still sort of thinking that's the agenda. On the other hand, there are people who believe the way to solve the population problem is to encourage eugenics and toss the inferior into incinerators.

I looked further into it and found the Journal's response to criticism that they published the article. Seems on the level.

Their position to publish was thus:

This paper was scrutinised by 3 peer reviewers and revised in light of their comments.

The Journal does not publish or not publish articles because of the controversial

nature of their conclusion, but rather on the quality of the argument. If an argument

was based on clearly and obviously mistaken premises, then we would reject it. But in

this case, there has been a long and ongoing debate on the moral status of early human

life – embryos, fetuses and neonates, as the above literature attests.


http://jme.bmj.com/content/suppl/2012/0 ... torial.pdf