Thoughts Online Magazine
Collected Articles on Culture & Politics
Journal of Medical Ethics? 
15th-Apr-2013 08:22 pm
Inspiration
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics apparently is nothing of the kind. I really don't recommend following the link. You might be tempted to throw something at your own monitor.

Sample:

On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

Revolting.
Comments 
16th-Apr-2013 12:27 pm (UTC)
I can defend this stance under one circumstance and one only, and that is the anencephalic or similarly disastrously malformed infant which by some bizarre accident of chance manages to be born breathing and with a heartbeat.

As to the rest, their general philosophy makes slippery-slope thinking look dead-flat. This is the profession that sees fit to agonise over whether retrospective testing or a particular piece of retrospective research on already-collected patient samples can be justified and pontificate upon the patient's right not to know the result. Fuck them with a cactus.

Edited at 2013-04-16 12:28 pm (UTC)
17th-Apr-2013 09:03 am (UTC)
AHEM!! First, such persons must never, under whatever circumstances, be allowed to become pregnant or have children. (Incredibly, one of them is female!) So, don't fuck them at all. Second, bear in mind the propensity of certain groups towards unusual sexual practices; alas, they would probably enjoy the cactus.
17th-Apr-2013 11:38 am (UTC)
Doing it with a cactus involves no chance of procreation. Hence the use of the cactus. Also, as much as they may enjoy the pain, the septicaemia which would undoubtedly follow would be something they would not enjoy.
17th-Apr-2013 04:25 pm (UTC)
I bow before your superior medical knowledge.
17th-Apr-2013 08:56 am (UTC)
These people evidently have utterly failed to become persons. By their own reasoning, I would be perfectly entitled to strangle both of them.

On the other hand... " when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible". Quite right. What it actually proves, of course, is that there are no circumstances in which abortion would be "justified". If you can't kill a baby after birth, which you obviously can't, then you can't kill it before birth.

Edited at 2013-04-17 08:59 am (UTC)
This page was loaded Apr 21st 2014, 2:57 pm GMT.