Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"After-birth abortion: should the baby live?"

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:03:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anyways there's been somewhat of a controversy about an article that two medical ethicists wrote in the "Journal of Medical Ethics". It's about the ethical permissibility of infanticide or, what they term, "after-birth abortion".

They call it after-birth abortion instead of infanticide because:

"In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion', rather than ‘infanticide', to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions' in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child."

Here it is (it's only 3 pages):

http://jme.bmj.com...

It's an interesting/edifying/horrifying (depending on how you look at it) article.

I used to argue about abortion a lot years ago and almost to a person the pro-choicer wanted their lines of arguments to work in cases of abortion but not for cases of infanticide.

The authors of the article argue that same line of logic used to argue for the ethical permissibility of abortion can be properly used to argue for the ethical permissiblity of "after-birth abortion".

Thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

P.S. One has to wonder why the brouhaha now - philosophers like Michael Tooley and Peter Singer have been arguing for the permissiblity of infanticide since forever ago. (I actually view that as a proper reductio ad absurdum of the typical pro-choice arguments, but I disgress.)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:22:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's taking the pro-choice position to its natural conclusion. Most of the arguments used to support abortion can also be applied to infants. So you must either be consistent and support infanticide, or be intentionally contradictory and not support infanticide, which just looks foolish.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:36:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"(1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people"

I didn't read the whole thing but I can assume these are the main reasons on which the authors derived their conclusion. If this is the case than I definitely think it poses a problem to pro-choicer who derive their support from these reasons but still denies the permissibility of infanticide. However, remember that these are not the only reasons one could be pro-choice. Consider the libertarian argument from lack of positive rights. The libertarian argues that the mother does not have a positive right to hold the child to term or to keep it lodged in her body. Regardless of whether one supports this view or not, it must be admitted that that argument is not vulnerable to the reductio since it does not rely on any of the above premises.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:43:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:36:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
"(1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people"

I didn't read the whole thing but I can assume these are the main reasons on which the authors derived their conclusion. If this is the case than I definitely think it poses a problem to pro-choicer who derive their support from these reasons but still denies the permissibility of infanticide. However, remember that these are not the only reasons one could be pro-choice. Consider the libertarian argument from lack of positive rights. The libertarian argues that the mother does not have a positive right to hold the child to term or to keep it lodged in her body. Regardless of whether one supports this view or not, it must be admitted that that argument is not vulnerable to the reductio since it does not rely on any of the above premises.

Yeah, I know there are other arguments that don't rely on these premises for the permissibility of abortion. I just meant those premises are the ones that are given a fair amount of the time and I view it as a successful reductio of that popular line of argument.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:52:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:43:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:36:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
"(1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people"

I didn't read the whole thing but I can assume these are the main reasons on which the authors derived their conclusion. If this is the case than I definitely think it poses a problem to pro-choicer who derive their support from these reasons but still denies the permissibility of infanticide. However, remember that these are not the only reasons one could be pro-choice. Consider the libertarian argument from lack of positive rights. The libertarian argues that the mother does not have a positive right to hold the child to term or to keep it lodged in her body. Regardless of whether one supports this view or not, it must be admitted that that argument is not vulnerable to the reductio since it does not rely on any of the above premises.

Yeah, I know there are other arguments that don't rely on these premises for the permissibility of abortion. I just meant those premises are the ones that are given a fair amount of the time and I view it as a successful reductio of that popular line of argument.

Yeah, I'd have to agree. I have a love/hate relationship with reductio's though. This reductio, while it shows that the standard (let's call it the liberal) position on abortion supports infanticide, it only relies on the fact that liberals generally don't support that to get it's point across. But it doesn't actually provide arguments against infanticide. I think liberals have to make a choice between the two options and infanticide is usually emotionally more hard to support, but the arguments that liberals generally put forward still remain. This article doesn't actually refute the liberal opinion, but shows that it supports something liberals generally don't like.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 8:00:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Actually, the position can quite easily be countered if the pro-choicer bases his/her decision on the idea that abortion is permissible before a certain mark like the development of a nervous system.

You could switch things around just as easily:

We find out how to turn skin cells back into embryonic stem cells. That is, if left in a womb-like environment, it would turn into a full-grown fetus.

You shave off some skin and start the chemical process which turns it into an embryonic stem cell.

Once the skin cell becomes an embryonic stem cell, does it gain a right to life? At what point during the chemical transformation could we possibly pinpoint where a single-cell coding specifically for skin-like traits regresses into an embryo with an inherent right to live?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 8:07:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm pretty sure that Singer doesn't support the indiscriminate killing of newborns. AFAIK he sets strict guidelines on which killings are permissible on severely disabled infants which I feel is a perfectly reasonable position once we abandon the traditional theistic notion of inherent value to all biologically human life and it our duty to perpetuate that life regardless of cost or pain involved. There are some utterly crippling birth defects out there that are just not best left to the child to suffer through.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 8:32:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 8:00:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
Actually, the position can quite easily be countered if the pro-choicer bases his/her decision on the idea that abortion is permissible before a certain mark like the development of a nervous system.


Not particularly considering the fact that traits typically appealed to (like self-awareness/sentience/consciousness/pain awareness/future wants and the like) don't really manifest in infants in a way that suits the pro-choicers aims. The argument that those type of arguments lead to the permissiblity of infanticide has been in the philosophical literature since forever ago.

See: chapter 3 in David Boonin's A Defense of Abortion.

http://books.google.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 8:39:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 8:32:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/5/2012 8:00:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
Actually, the position can quite easily be countered if the pro-choicer bases his/her decision on the idea that abortion is permissible before a certain mark like the development of a nervous system.


Not particularly considering the fact that traits typically appealed to (like self-awareness/sentience/consciousness/pain awareness/future wants and the like) don't really manifest in infants in a way that suits the pro-choicers aims. The argument that those type of arguments lead to the permissiblity of infanticide has been in the philosophical literature since forever ago.

See: chapter 3 in David Boonin's A Defense of Abortion.

http://books.google.com...

It only went up to chapter 2.5. What are his arguments?

And what are your thoughts on the second half of my post?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 8:43:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 8:39:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/5/2012 8:32:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/5/2012 8:00:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
Actually, the position can quite easily be countered if the pro-choicer bases his/her decision on the idea that abortion is permissible before a certain mark like the development of a nervous system.


Not particularly considering the fact that traits typically appealed to (like self-awareness/sentience/consciousness/pain awareness/future wants and the like) don't really manifest in infants in a way that suits the pro-choicers aims. The argument that those type of arguments lead to the permissiblity of infanticide has been in the philosophical literature since forever ago.

See: chapter 3 in David Boonin's A Defense of Abortion.

http://books.google.com...

It only went up to chapter 2.5. What are his arguments?


Just click on the chapter entitled "postconception criteria" (pg. 91) from the pull down menu.

And what are your thoughts on the second half of my post?

I'll mull on it a bit before replying.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 10:04:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 9:34:59 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Before birth: abortion
After birth: murder
Any questions?

What makes abortion different than murder?

Why does the act of childbirth give the child the right to life as opposed to, say conception or a certain level of development?
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 10:51:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 10:49:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Sterilize the human race. Pesky ethical issues resolved.

Other than the part where we die out.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 10:52:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 10:51:59 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 3/5/2012 10:49:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Sterilize the human race. Pesky ethical issues resolved.

Other than the part where we die out.

Eh, we got time to figure it. Cloning, I say.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 10:57:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 10:52:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/5/2012 10:51:59 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 3/5/2012 10:49:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Sterilize the human race. Pesky ethical issues resolved.

Other than the part where we die out.

Eh, we got time to figure it. Cloning, I say.

Touche
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 5:49:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 8:07:20 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Singer doesn't support the indiscriminate killing of newborns.

From what I recall he doesn't have a problem with your indiscriminately (painlessly) killing newborns but that it may upset people like their parents.

I happen to very much dislike the notion of killing babies... and if peter singer was hungry and tried to eat some baby (mistakingly)thinking that no one's around to care I'd kill him.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 5:52:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 5:49:22 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/5/2012 8:07:20 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Singer doesn't support the indiscriminate killing of newborns.

From what I recall he doesn't have a problem with your indiscriminately (painlessly) killing newborns but that it may upset people like their parents.

I happen to very much dislike the notion of killing babies... and if peter singer was hungry and tried to eat some baby (mistakingly)thinking that no one's around to care I'd kill him.

it's funny how he's vegan but supports infanticide... At the very least you'd think we could eat the babies!! or.. other animals if killed in a similar manner.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 8:25:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You'll find most Pro-abort's very flexible on the permissability of killing a fetus or a newborn who was the product of a botched abortion.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 10:40:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 5:49:22 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/5/2012 8:07:20 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Singer doesn't support the indiscriminate killing of newborns.

From what I recall he doesn't have a problem with your indiscriminately (painlessly) killing newborns but that it may upset people like their parents.

I happen to very much dislike the notion of killing babies... and if peter singer was hungry and tried to eat some baby (mistakingly)thinking that no one's around to care I'd kill him.

Cite the source. He may have changed stances but my source cites provisions on when euthanasia is acceptable with newborns.

You dislike it? Cool. I dislike skinny jeans, almond hershey bars, and modern music.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 11:14:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 10:40:28 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/6/2012 5:49:22 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/5/2012 8:07:20 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Singer doesn't support the indiscriminate killing of newborns.

From what I recall he doesn't have a problem with your indiscriminately (painlessly) killing newborns but that it may upset people like their parents.

I happen to very much dislike the notion of killing babies... and if peter singer was hungry and tried to eat some baby (mistakingly)thinking that no one's around to care I'd kill him.

Cite the source. He may have changed stances but my source cites provisions on when euthanasia is acceptable with newborns.

How bout I explain my understanding of his rationale and how it applies to what I'm saying he would support? o.O

And then you explain how my understanding of his position is faulty.. if you think it's a misrepresentation.

his good is based upon preferences of any and all...
newborns can't have preferences as to whether they live or not... their continued existence is Only morally important when Others have preferences regarding it.

if no-one prefers that they continue to live (which they themselves are not capable of) it's not morally important to have them do so.

If people/persons prefer they die.. They should die.

Now.. In regard to disabled babes I recall him prefacing his argument with an assumption that the parents want them to die..
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 11:18:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 11:14:50 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
his good is based upon preferences of any and all...
newborns can't have preferences as to whether they live or not... their continued existence is Only morally important when Others have preferences regarding it.

So... if peter singer happens to get hungry for some baby-flesh... Would Prefer to eat one.. and doesn't think anyone else has preferences as to whether or not the baby lives...

Then it's good to eat one!

however, if I knew that he was eating babies.. I'd kill'm
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 12:13:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 11:14:50 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/6/2012 10:40:28 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/6/2012 5:49:22 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/5/2012 8:07:20 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Singer doesn't support the indiscriminate killing of newborns.

From what I recall he doesn't have a problem with your indiscriminately (painlessly) killing newborns but that it may upset people like their parents.

I happen to very much dislike the notion of killing babies... and if peter singer was hungry and tried to eat some baby (mistakingly)thinking that no one's around to care I'd kill him.

Cite the source. He may have changed stances but my source cites provisions on when euthanasia is acceptable with newborns.

How bout I explain my understanding of his rationale and how it applies to what I'm saying he would support? o.O

And then you explain how my understanding of his position is faulty.. if you think it's a misrepresentation.

his good is based upon preferences of any and all...
newborns can't have preferences as to whether they live or not... their continued existence is Only morally important when Others have preferences regarding it.

if no-one prefers that they continue to live (which they themselves are not capable of) it's not morally important to have them do so.

If people/persons prefer they die.. They should die.

Now.. In regard to disabled babes I recall him prefacing his argument with an assumption that the parents want them to die..

"Amid the overheated attacks on Singer, it is important to highlight what he is not saying: he does not advocate that the State begin to abort or kill any and all disabled fetuses or newborns; rather, parents, together with their physicians, should have the right to decide whether the infant's life will be so miserable that it would be inhumane to prolong it. Singer clearly is not offering carte blanch on killing babies: He would establish very strict conditions on permissible instances of infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to any intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant."

Again, the fact that you don't like it doesn't mean anything. He's following his views to his logical conclusions while you refuse to make moral judgments in the first place.

http://www.animalliberationfront.com...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 3:16:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 12:13:18 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
"Singer clearly is not offering carte blanch on killing babies
He would establish very strict conditions on permissible instances of infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to any intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant."

Indeed.. It's a Carte Blanch BARRING other people (like the parents) caring... Exactly what I said.

Given that no-one (like the parents) cares for the infants continued survival.. Killing it is fine... Be it to eat, or to avoid being inconvenienced.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 3:20:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 12:13:18 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
while you refuse to make moral judgments in the first place.

also... I make judgments all the time...

I'm an egoist.. Your saying my judgments aren't "moral" is a semantics game...

I make judgments as to what "ought" be done all the time.. I just acknowledge that they're informed by/depend upon what I care about.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 3:20:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 3:16:18 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/6/2012 12:13:18 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
"Singer clearly is not offering carte blanch on killing babies
He would establish very strict conditions on permissible instances of infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to any intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant."

Indeed.. It's a Carte Blanch BARRING other people (like the parents) caring... Exactly what I said.

Given that no-one (like the parents) cares for the infants continued survival.. Killing it is fine... Be it to eat, or to avoid being inconvenienced.

You need to find sources. This is a secondary source on Singer's work, and while it's clear that Singer says newborns are not morally equivalent to full adults (which I think is fairly obvious) he does not state here that newborns are of no intrinsic value. It says later in the article that Singer does not condone "dumpster babies" so it would imply that even in the limited conscious state they're in that newborns hold some value...
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 3:23:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 10:04:17 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 3/5/2012 9:34:59 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Before birth: abortion
After birth: murder
Any questions?

What makes abortion different than murder?

See above.

Why does the act of childbirth give the child the right to life as opposed to, say conception or a certain level of development?

I look to the natural world for my answers for the purpose of objectivity. In nature, birth is required for a fetus to become an independent life-form. Therefore, giving it "rights," i.e., the right to life, the right to a fair trial, freedom of speech, etc. is really quite ridiculous. A baby must be born to to gain the right to live.
Rob
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 3:28:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 3:20:19 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/6/2012 12:13:18 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
while you refuse to make moral judgments in the first place.

also... I make judgments all the time...

I'm an egoist.. Your saying my judgments aren't "moral" is a semantics game...

I make judgments as to what "ought" be done all the time.. I just acknowledge that they're informed by/depend upon what I care about.

I generally avoid the term "moral" so as to draw attention (as to be most clear) to the limited nature of my "ought" claims.

They're based in the fact that I'm a human being.. and limited by my perspective.. Though they might plausibly be of weight to other beings similar to myself.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 3:36:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 3:20:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/6/2012 3:16:18 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/6/2012 12:13:18 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
"Singer clearly is not offering carte blanch on killing babies
He would establish very strict conditions on permissible instances of infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to any intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant."

Indeed.. It's a Carte Blanch BARRING other people (like the parents) caring... Exactly what I said.

Given that no-one (like the parents) cares for the infants continued survival.. Killing it is fine... Be it to eat, or to avoid being inconvenienced.

You need to find sources. This is a secondary source on Singer's work, and while it's clear that Singer says newborns are not morally equivalent to full adults (which I think is fairly obvious) he does not state here that newborns are of no intrinsic value. It says later in the article that Singer does not condone "dumpster babies" so it would imply that even in the limited conscious state they're in that newborns hold some value...

Dumpster babies would rather not feel the pain of starvation or of being crushed...

They have no preference as to whether or not they continue to live.

If other's care for them to die... and they can make it happen without it negatively affecting other's preferences (like by causing the babies pain by having them starve/suffocate in a dumpster) then it's w/o question AOK to do so.. If there's some conflict of preferences then I guess it gets more complicated and it's time to take out those complicated Utilitarian scales which somehow adjust for measuring the weight of various objective Benefits of various things to different people.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2012 11:56:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sure, go ahead.
Still waiting on someone to provide inherent moral values, and not ones society agrees upon.
I miss the old members.