Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

The authors of the paper wrote an open letter addressing the concerns:

However, we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal. This was not made clear enough in the paper. Laws are not just about rational ethical arguments, because there are many practical, emotional, social aspects that are relevant in policy making (such as respecting the plurality of ethical views, people’s emotional reactions etc). But we are not policy makers, we are philosophers, and we deal with concepts, not with legal policy.

Source

I found a full copy of the letter above. It's actually not the newest article ever; and was critisized by doctors and peers of theirs too. (In response to people who think this is a 'scientific' or 'progressive liberal' movement) The authors themselves and the publishing body all agreed it was not desired to be policy. To classify this article with the title 'experts say' is just bombastic and media glorifying to cause a stir. Academic journals are not the place to read and say 'experts say', since university staff and students submit to them all the time.

I notice a number of persons in this very thread who have posted regarding the idea of 'thought crimes' and certain ideas of theirs being legislated out of existence. Philosophical essays, even in the under graduate area investigate how and why we know what is morally correct and incorrect on a daily basis. We need freedom to ask these questions I suppose to understand how we come to our conclusions in the first place.

As a few of said, the two writers should have the right to investigate these ideas without death threats. I disagree with their proposed conclusions having read the paper, but free speech etc ...

However, such rare and severe pathologies are not the only ones that are likely to remain undetected until delivery; even more common congenital diseases that women are usually tested for could fail to be detected. An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down's syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing.2 This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down's syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. Once these children are born, there is no choice for the parents but to keep the child, which sometimes is exactly what they would not have done if the disease had been diagnosed before birth.

Source

There are other justifications in the article. Francesca's main interests appear to be: Philosophy, Bioethics, Medical Ethics, Neuroethics and Bioethics, Death, Life extension. Really the person is just doing their job; investigating and issue and asking 'why'. I haven't looked into it too deeply but just because someone is in a university, it doesn't make them the expert or even that particularly well trained. No offense to the writers, but it looks like Francesca has only written a few journal articles.

Like I say, I'm not saying I agree with it. There really is nothing to politicize here though. It's just philosophers doing what philosophers do! It's not science.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Cant help but get he impression that all your bothered about is making sure a life comes to term but then couldn't care less how that life is lived - Defeats the purpose almost?

What you are suggesting is that killing in or out of the womb can be justified based on subjective live quality ideas. We could then means test life on one side of the womb or another.

Cant help being a realist, i wouldn't have a child be born into a family who abuse them throughout childhood, do not raise them as adults who can live productively in the adult world and spend their lives almost in a state in constant depression, negative thinking and at a disconnect level with their peers. Im certainly not suggesting that this is the case for all babies born into undesirable circumstances but this happens to TO many people

The phrase "i wish i was never born" is meant by some people, all the more reason why women should be able to make that choice about bringing life into the world because if they aren't ready to do it, then who are you to dictate differently? Who is anyone really?

You know you just asked "who are you, who is anyone" to dictate.....after having said "I wouldnt have a child born" ect. So you are willing to dictate for the child and the parents in cases you would approve of.

But please lets move this up to small children. You going to tell a child or its parents in certain cases that they have no prospects ect ect and for the thier own good we are going to put you down? In fact someone needs to come in and weed out a % because projections show the population to to large for a balanced quality of life for the whole.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Cant help but get he impression that all your bothered about is making sure a life comes to term but then couldn't care less how that life is lived - Defeats the purpose almost?

What you are suggesting is that killing in or out of the womb can be justified based on subjective live quality ideas. We could then means test life on one side of the womb or another.

Cant help being a realist, i wouldn't have a child be born into a family who abuse them throughout childhood, do not raise them as adults who can live productively in the adult world and spend their lives almost in a state in constant depression, negative thinking and at a disconnect level with their peers. Im certainly not suggesting that this is the case for all babies born into undesirable circumstances but this happens to TO many people

The phrase "i wish i was never born" is meant by some people, all the more reason why women should be able to make that choice about bringing life into the world because if they aren't ready to do it, then who are you to dictate differently? Who is anyone really?

You know you just asked "who are you, who is anyone" to dictate.....after having said "I wouldnt have a child born" ect. So you are willing to dictate for the child and the parents in cases you would approve of.

But please lets move this up to small children. You going to tell a child or its parents in certain cases that they have no prospects ect ect and for the thier own good we are going to put you down? In fact someone needs to come in and weed out a % because projections show the population to to large for a balanced quality of life for the whole.

Your basically suggesting that a child is in charge of the parent then? Simply because they are "innocent" ? Ive already stated after baby is born i believe it has a "right to life" and the responsibility lays with both parents, however, if that child is born into a family of alcoholics who are abusive the likelihood of it is, said child will grow up to be no better than its parents (im aware that this is not always the case) This reality being highlighted, if the parents recognised their inability to raise a child then a whole lot of drama can be avoided.

I do believe everyone can have a balanced quality of life, trouble is to much greed at the top keeping the majority poor.