Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Ethicists Argue in Favor of "After Birth Abortions" as Newborns "Are Not Persons"


We lock topics that are over 365 days old, and the last reply made in this topic was 3812 days ago. If you want to discuss this subject, we prefer that you start a new topic.

Recommended Posts

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn. The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “emphasizes that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus, rather than to that of a child.”

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.”

Full Article: TheBlaze.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article says "The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense"... that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus, rather than to that of a child.”

What a colossal load of BS. Man is acting outside of his rights by trying to determine for himself what is "morally relevant". A fetus is comparable to a child, and killing one is no different than killing the other.

Psalm 139:15, 16 “When I was made in secret, When I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, And in your book all its parts were down in writing.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. This sounds like a position I would take if I was debating abortion philosophically. It's a common practice to take the opposite side of your argument and present it in an absurd way in order to highlight the fallacy of that side. Until reading the article, I would have used this line of logic to show the absurdity of abortion. "Hey, newborns aren't people, let's kill them too."

2. Be careful when you read anything from "The Blaze." It's a very conservative, right wing news agency launched in opposition to the "liberal media." I would not be surprised if they were biased in their reporting just as much as any other media outlet. I tried to read the whole "After Birth Abortion" paper from the Journal of Medical Ethics, but I am not a subscriber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. This sounds like a position I would take if I was debating abortion philosophically. It's a common practice to take the opposite side of your argument and present it in an absurd way in order to highlight the fallacy of that side. Until reading the article, I would have used this line of logic to show the absurdity of abortion. "Hey, newborns aren't people, let's kill them too."

2. Be careful when you read anything from "The Blaze." It's a very conservative, right wing news agency launched in opposition to the "liberal media." I would not be surprised if they were biased in their reporting just as much as any other media outlet. I tried to read the whole "After Birth Abortion" paper from the Journal of Medical Ethics, but I am not a subscriber.

It's hard for anyone with a normal conscience to believe that this could be something someone was really making an argument for, but the position held by many early 20th century progressive socialists was that a child of two or three could still be aborted, and this would not be murder because the child was not yet independently viable

I agree their positions are biased toward the conservative, but, they seem to be pretty careful in checking out the facts before printing anything. I believe that our position on abortion would be looked at as conservative as well, wouldn't it? The difference being that we understand that Jehovah doesn't need us to fix the problem, He will do it.

I always shake my head when I read anything from Glenn Beck, he's is so up on world events, and so totally wrong on what's causing it, or where it's headed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You read this article and it sounds very like the reasoning of the Eugenics programs Hitler introduced to rid the country of those the state deemed 'inferior' and a 'burden on society'. The Reich set about, with it's scarey efficiency, sterilizing 'the inferior' beyond childhood and doing away with the mentally ill and disabled etc, etc.(Mind you, they did get those ideas from eugenics doctors in the USA and relatives of Charles Darwin).

It makes you shudder how they discuss this with all their 'detatched from human emotions' reasoning. They probably would believe in euthanesia for those with dementia as they also fit their criteria of 'so dependent they are not really a person' and in their eyes an inconvenience to be rid of!!!

Just proves this is Satan's World, reflecting the entirely opposite dominant quality to Jehovah's Love. Without this moral compass to guide you, what are you?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lower level "enforcers" of the Nazi Regime were prosecuted, however it is a well known fact many Nazi scientists were flown to the US and started programs like NASA. If fact, the recently retired space shuttle was a 1930s Nazi design.

I've often wondered about the relationship between the King of the North/South and the dominant world power. (Anglo-American) Throughout the 20th Century. More and more it appears the supranational "elite" fund(ed) both sides of most wars.

So, yes the German Empire was defeated but the Nazis were not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. This sounds like a position I would take if I was debating abortion philosophically. It's a common practice to take the opposite side of your argument and present it in an absurd way in order to highlight the fallacy of that side. Until reading the article, I would have used this line of logic to show the absurdity of abortion. "Hey, newborns aren't people, let's kill them too."

While I get what you are saying, I can personally vouch for information like this because of the nature of my education. In one of my biological sciences courses we discussed the latest termination dates for a fetus. Most countries take a no more than 4 months old stance, whereas others with less strict governmental influence were seen to be conducting procedures as late as 8 months.

Let me break this down for you a little bit more graphically, it is something I will never forget and something that absolutely horrified me as a mother. At 8 months, the 'fetus' - though fully capable of surviving outside of the uterine environment was partially delivered, and had the brain vacuumed out. My exact words were, as this was being discussed were ARE YOU %$#!ING KIDDING ME. (I wasn't a servant of Jehovah then, and I was quite verbal about what my thoughts on this were).

Then we had one woman from the Ukraine, who basically told me that Canada wasn't as progressive as some of the European countries and that women should have rights to do whatever they want to their body. My response "YES, YOUR body --- that is not YOUR body you flaming moron."

Our instructor said this was always the most volatile portion of the class, and that he had, had in the past students throwing chairs at one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

About JWTalk.net - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Since 2006, JWTalk has proved to be a well-moderated online community for real Jehovah's Witnesses on the web. However, our community is not an official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not endorsed, sponsored, or maintained by any legal entity used by Jehovah's Witnesses. We are a pro-JW community maintained by brothers and sisters around the world. We expect all community members to be active publishers in their congregations, therefore, please do not apply for membership if you are not currently one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

JWTalk 22.7.20 (changelog)