Newsflash - people can't read and espouse horrible violence.

[weemadando]

Long story short - Bioethicists write a paper debating the morality of "post birth abortion" as a theoretical for a publication.

News media report it as, well, see that headline. At least some of the media actually stated that it was a theoretical paper, and gave some facts, not pure sensationalism.

The inevitable result? Everyone involved gets death threats. Because life is sacred.

Abortion outrage: Mums should be allowed to terminate newborns, say Australian academics
by: By staff writers and AAP
From: news.com.au
March 02, 2012 7:44AM

RESULTS: MORAL ISSUE
This poll is closed.
Should mother's be allowed to terminate newborns?
Yes
11.99%(266 votes)
No
88.01%(1953 votes)
Total votes: 2219

KILLING newborn babies should be allowed if the mother wishes, Australian philosophers have argued in a prestigious journal.
Their argument, that it is morally the same as abortion, has forced the British Medical Journal to defend its publication of their views.

In an article that has sparked outrage around the world and elicited death threats, Monash University's Alberto Giubilini and the University of Melbourne's Francesca Minerva say that a foetus and a newborn both lack a sense of life and aspiration.

They argue this justifies "after-birth abortion" on the proviso it is painless as the baby is not missing out on a life it cannot contemplate.

The doctors of philosophy argue in the BMJ publication Journal of Medical Ethics that one-third of infants with Down syndrome are not diagnosed in the womb, which means mothers of children with severe disabilities should have the chance to end a child's life after, as well as before, birth.

However, the pair also want the principle of killing newborns extended to healthy babies, because a mother who is unwilling to care for it outweighs an infant's right to life.

In the article, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, the authors argue: "A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human."

They also write that the practice should be called "after-birth abortion" and not "infanticide" to "emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a foetus (on which 'abortions' in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child".

"We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia."

Although the authors claim that the "moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a 'person' in a morally relevant sense", they concede it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a "person".

The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, said the article had "elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety". He said some of comments included:

"These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society."

"Right now I think these two devils in human skin need to be delivered for immediate execution under their code of 'after birth abortions' they want to commit murder – that is all it is! MURDER!!!"

"The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier"

“Alberto Giubilini looks like a muslim so I have to agree with him that all muslims should have been aborted. If abortion fails, no life at birth – just like he wants."

He defended the article, saying the arguments in the paper were not new. "The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide ... but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands."

He said that "more than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society".

If you really want to hate humanity, read the comments.

[AniThyng]

It would be interesting to see how many of the people who are outraged are otherwise in favor of late trimester abortions. If they are then I think this is an interesting look at the premises. If they are also pro-life then I suppose this doesn't change anything for them.

[someone_else]

kinda reminds me that discussion on abortion we had some time ago.

Besides, these bioeticists are complete morons (btw, what's the job of a bioeticist anyway?). It's plain obivous that something like that would be spinned towards VIOLENCE ON MURDERERS!!!!!111!!!. They have the right to talk of whatever, but hell, do it discreetly, use words outside of the average idiot's 100-word vocabulary, place plenty of hypotetical nonsense and wrap it all in complex syntax to keep most ravaging idiots out.

The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands

wtf?
What the hell does this mean? Anywhere you'll find desperate people who do it (also cultists that sacrifice them to dark forgotten gods), why single out netherlands?

[Eleas]

The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands

wtf?
What the hell does this mean? Anywhere you'll find desperate people who do it (also cultists that sacrifice them to dark forgotten gods), why single out netherlands?

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/297

The guideline accepted by the hospital in Groningen last year states that euthanasia is allowed when the child’s medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it is best.

In other words, the speaker commits the sin of lying by omission, as he doesn't mention the fact that it is infanticide committed only to ease the suffering of a dying child.

[Grumman]

These are hardly the only Australian philosophers to have made this argument - Peter Singer's another one.

I don't see any academic merit to their paper, for just the reason they discovered: their argument is so abhorrent to most people that the well has been thoroughly poisoned, preventing any real discussion. It's like starting a debate by saying "To play the Devil's advocate, I think the holocaust was a good thing".

(btw, what's the job of a bioeticist anyway?)

To be a professional troll, apparently.

[Zinegata]

Or "To play the devil's advocate, the Spartans were totally correct to murder their deformed infants".

I don't see the merit of the paper either; frankly these guys sound like real-life trolls and are now whining about how they are getting flamed.

[K. A. Pital]

And the rational reason why termination is less preferrable post-birth than shortly before birth?

[Sarevok]

Or "To play the devil's advocate, the Spartans were totally correct to murder their deformed infants".

I don't see the merit of the paper either; frankly these guys sound like real-life trolls and are now whining about how they are getting flamed.

I concur.

[mr friendly guy]

Or "To play the devil's advocate, the Spartans were totally correct to murder their deformed infants".

Duh. They were clearly wrong because at the end of the day they could no longer field enough super soldiers to fight against the other Greek city states.

If anyone fails to catch the sarcasm go buy yourself a new sarcasm detector.

In the article, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, the authors argue: "A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human."

All such arguments however will hinge on "what constitutes a person", otherwise its pointless to even proceed. To which the authors say

Although the authors claim that the "moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a 'person' in a morally relevant sense", they concede it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a "person".

Thats a bit of a problem even using "terms which is of interest only to the bioethicists community." Nevermind how abhorrent the view is to killing healthy babies.

Besides, these bioeticists are complete morons (btw, what's the job of a bioeticist anyway?).

First I will add a disclaimer that its unlikely all bioethicists hold the same view so its most probably not prudent to tar them all with the same troll claim.

That being said, I am more interested in how much they get paid to troll.

[weemadando]

In The Age article, it's explicitly stated that the article had disclaimers like: "NOTE: WE DO NOT ACTUALLY SUPPORT THE IDEAS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN HERE, WE ARE JUST DEBATING THE PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS OF IT"

But hey, I guess they must just be terrible people for doing their jobs and considering this stuff.

[Thanas]

Do your job = get labelled as real life troll.

As if such hypotheticals will not result in good argumentation that might be used for other parameters, right?

[Pendleton]

I bet all those nuclear war gamers are horrible people for thinking about all the possible scenarios millions of people could be killed in.

Did someone actually ask what a bioethicist is in this thread? Really?

[Grumman]

In The Age article, it's explicitly stated that the article had disclaimers like: "NOTE: WE DO NOT ACTUALLY SUPPORT THE IDEAS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN HERE, WE ARE JUST DEBATING THE PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS OF IT"

Can you quote the part where it says this?

Even if they did include these disclaimers (and I could not find them in their paper), there is a disconnect between the claim that they do not support the idea, and the claim that from an ethical standpoint, the numbers add up. If their worldview (now) holds that it is unethical to murder infants, the conclusion they would have reached is that it's unethical to murder infants.

I bet all those nuclear war gamers are horrible people for thinking about all the possible scenarios millions of people could be killed in.

Those nuclear war gamers aren't claiming to make an ethical argument that the deaths of millions of people through nuclear war is a good thing, are they?

[Pendleton]

Those nuclear war gamers aren't claiming to make an ethical argument that the deaths of millions of people through nuclear war is a good thing, are they?

That depends. These are all hypotheticals and it can be argued that some abhorrent strategic options are optimal because it favours limiting our losses over an enemy's.

[Ziggy Stardust]

While it is important for bioethicists to look at this issue, the fact that the online version of the paper doesn't appear to have any disclaimers is pretty damning. Heck, skimming through it, the structure and language are incredibly imprecise and non-scientific, which suggests to me that this was a lot more about getting attention than it was actually doing their job. Unless they are just BAD at their job, which is also a possibility. Seriously, what a terribly written paper, regardless of the subject.

[Alyrium Denryle]

WIth a few exceptions and you know who you are: You people are all fucking idiots.

btw, what's the job of a bioeticist anyway?

You know all those silly little things like: rules regarding informed consent in medical intervention and research, how we treat human and animal research subjects, use of current medication as a control when researching new drugs instead of placebo, how doctors are supposed to treat you, what are better more ethical ways to deal with organ donation, your rights and freedoms at the end of your life and pretty much every other regulation regarding what might happen to you if you ever become a patient or research subject? Bioethicists wrote them.

They have the right to talk of whatever, but hell, do it discreetly, use words outside of the average idiot's 100-word vocabulary, place plenty of hypotetical nonsense and wrap it all in complex syntax to keep most ravaging idiots out.

They did, moron. They published it in a medical journal that lay-people never read. They have been the victims of shitty journalism, and people who (like some in this thread) do not understand what is being discussed or how argumentation in ethics works, but think they have a valid opinion.

Heck, skimming through it, the structure and language are incredibly imprecise and non-scientific

That is because it is philosophy.

I don't see the merit of the paper either; frankly these guys sound like real-life trolls and are now whining about how they are getting flamed.

This is how ethicists argue. They take up a devils advocate position, and then defend it from others who try to poke holes in it. They will attack another ethicists opinion by extending the logic the other guys use outside the original case and either reduce that logic to absurdity, or generate a counter-example by which the logic used by their opponent reaches a patently abhorrent conclusion, and they then proceed to defend that abhorrent conclusion when their opponent counter-argues.

[General Mung Beans]

And the rational reason why termination is less preferrable post-birth than shortly before birth?

Because at this point, regardless of arguments for and against abortion, the infant does not need the mother's body to survive and is a completely independent being. Granted this applies to abortions shortly before birth.

[Thanas]

And the rational reason why termination is less preferrable post-birth than shortly before birth?

Because at this point, regardless of arguments for and against abortion, the infant does not need the mother's body to survive and is a completely independent being.

No, he is not. He needs the mother to provide milk and shelter, as well as attend to other bodily needs. (If you say that can be replaced by outsiders, the same is true for a fetus that is 5+ months along).

[Siege]

"The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands."

PS: it isn't. The current Dutch PM isn't called Herod. Any random idiot is insofar as I'm concerned perfectly free to disagree with any of a number of our current government's policies (hell, I disagree with a great many of them) but I would greatly appreciate it if nutters stopped using the Netherlands as some kind of ludicrously allegorical Gomorrah by the Sea.

[Zinegata]

I don't see the merit of the paper either; frankly these guys sound like real-life trolls and are now whining about how they are getting flamed.

This is how ethicists argue. They take up a devils advocate position, and then defend it from others who try to poke holes in it. They will attack another ethicists opinion by extending the logic the other guys use outside the original case and either reduce that logic to absurdity, or generate a counter-example by which the logic used by their opponent reaches a patently abhorrent conclusion, and they then proceed to defend that abhorrent conclusion when their opponent counter-argues.

I understand what an ethicist is supposed to do.

However, their response to the apparent "death threats" from THE INTERNET frankly borders on whining. The mature response would be "This is a thought experiment meant to provoke reasoned discussion from fellow peers", not whine about how they're getting death threats from THE INTERNET who aren't bioethicists. If that's your calling, explain your calling and take the flak the profession is supposed to get; not whine about how Internet flamers want them dead. Don't enter a profession that is supposed to ask hard questions, without being willing to explain the nature of your profession and the ability to take the flak for asking the said hard question.

Moreover, what I really, really, don't like about the paper is that it attempts to try and claim that there is apparently a difference between "post-birth abortion" and "infanticide". If you wanna argue that society should kill off members of society to maintain its well-being (which is actually the core of the argument), then say so. Don't try to sugar coat it by using new lingo. There's very little use to advocate that infanticide should be a logical extension of abortion while at the same time (by their own admission) deliberately ignoring the question of "where does life/personhood start"?

In other words, the paper is useless because it's just semantic fudging; the position linked by Grumman (from Singer) by contrast goes to the very core of the issue and I think that was much more worthy of discussion and ethical debate. "As a devil's advocate, perhaps we should consider that personhood does not start at birth" is a sound thing to argue about and has actual wide-reaching implications.

[Thanas]

However, their response to the apparent "death threats" from THE INTERNET frankly borders on whining. The mature response would be "This is a thought experiment meant to provoke reasoned discussion from fellow peers", not whine about how they're getting death threats from THE INTERNET who aren't bioethicists.

Funny, because that is exactly how they are explaining themselves.

If that's your calling, explain your calling and take the flak the profession is supposed to get; not whine about how Internet flamers want them dead. Don't enter a profession that is supposed to ask hard questions, without being willing to explain the nature of your profession and the ability to take the flak for asking the said hard question.

No, I think they are rightfully concerned how many idiots seem to be unable to read. Including you, who thinks that apparently every expert ever has to write a lengthy response as to what their profession also entails because you are too stupid to read or use google/wikipedia.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Thanas takes care of the first half of my response... Thank you Thanas <3

Moreover, what I really, really, don't like about the paper is that it attempts to try and claim that there is apparently a difference between "post-birth abortion" and "infanticide". If you wanna argue that society should kill off members of society to maintain its well-being (which is actually the core of the argument), then say so. Don't try to sugar coat it by using new lingo. There's very little use to advocate that infanticide should be a logical extension of abortion while at the same time (by their own admission) deliberately ignoring the question of "where does life/personhood start"?

You want to know why they did that? Because the word Infanticide has a lot of negative historical and cultural connotations that poison the well. They are also comparing that action with a late term abortion. It therefore makes sense to be a lexiconic splitter.

Also: Reading Fail

We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons.

They explicitly define what a person is. What they DO avoid, is saying when a human being becomes a person, because we dont fucking know yet.

[Grumman]

You want to know why they did that? Because the word Infanticide has a lot of negative historical and cultural connotations that poison the well.

Have you considered why the word "infanticide" has these negative connotations? Here's a hint: because it's associated with the act of infanticide. You can call it Happy Fun Freedom Killing if you like, it won't change the fact that it's still fucking infanticide.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You want to know why they did that? Because the word Infanticide has a lot of negative historical and cultural connotations that poison the well.

Have you considered why the word "infanticide" has these negative connotations? Here's a hint: because it's associated with the act of infanticide. You can call it Happy Fun Freedom Killing if you like, it won't change the fact that it's still fucking infanticide.

You are missing the god damn point. Not that I expect anything different from a mouth-breathing prole.

Many arguments for and against abortion depend on a definition of personhood. Some of those can extend the permissibility of abortion to newborns when the logic is extended. This author made the argument saying "Ok. I have provided an argument for why this is not even wrong. Now, refute it bitches". Using a term like infanticide instead of a neutral term like post-birth abortion inflames the passions, prevents discussion of the legitimate question, and more importantly Begs the Question and implicitly torpedoes their own argument before it is out of the starting gate. It is like making an argument in favor of assisted suicide looking for someone to come along and try to refute it, but calling it murder inside your own argument.

[someone_else]

Besides, these bioeticists are complete morons (btw, what's the job of a bioeticist anyway?).

First I will add a disclaimer that its unlikely all bioethicists hold the same view so its most probably not prudent to tar them all with the same troll claim.[/quote]
Maybe I'm not getting what you said, but I said THESE are morons/trolls, and just asked what are jobs where you need a bioethicist.

You know all those silly little things like: rules regarding informed consent in medical intervention and research, how we treat human and animal research subjects, use of current medication as a control when researching new drugs instead of placebo, how doctors are supposed to treat you, what are better more ethical ways to deal with organ donation, your rights and freedoms at the end of your life and pretty much every other regulation regarding what might happen to you if you ever become a patient or research subject? Bioethicists wrote them.

Ok, reversing the question: why you need a bioethicist for that? What do they have more than an expert in the field the rule is written for?
I thought ethics is as close as personal opinion as anything can get, when you get outside of the most-traveled routes (no killing no stealing no rape...).

Because at this point (after birth), regardless of arguments for and against abortion, the infant does not need the mother's body to survive and is a completely independent being.

I wouldn't call an infant "independent". It needs significant care to survive till it can feed itself. It's just that anyone can do it, not just the mother.