Is this an elaborate troll or the best idea ever?

[Acid King]

Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (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, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/0 ... 00411.full

[Udderdude]

Seems like a giant strawman argument to me.

[Ex-Cyber]

Troll, and not even a very convincing one.

[njiska]

Oh god, this thread is not going to end well. And in answer to your question, elaborate troll. The biggest problem with the paper's argument is that it fails to take into account the almost universally accepted stance that there is a difference between early and late-term (20+ weeks) abortions. The difference is normally determined by the viability of the child to survive outside the womb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viability_(fetal).

To be fair it's all a moral grey area and probably always will be. Either way the bulk of humanity will probably agree that infanticide is wrong, even if they are an abortion supporter. And I come from a country with absolutely zero abortion laws.

I think the author's may be trying to make a point about the questionable medical ethics, but they fail miserably.

[Acid King]

I disagree. Best idea ever. Also, I've got the munchies for a California cheeseburger.

[Udderdude]

[Vyxx]

I understand why people are against abortion, but I don't agree with the idea that if the mother is in severe danger of death or perhaps a victim of rape that she not be allowed the option. Every grey area has reason for both arguments to be heard, there is no clean cut answer. Problem is the people who stand on the side of the road with signs and pictures of aborted babies. Yes, we get it, you don't like it. Thanks for ruining my lunch.

[njiska]

Yes, we get it, you don't like it. Thanks for ruining my lunch.

That so needs to on a placard.

[Acid King]

I understand why people are against abortion, but I don't agree with the idea that if the mother is in severe danger of death or perhaps a victim of rape that she not be allowed the option. Every grey area has reason for both arguments to be heard, there is no clean cut answer. Problem is the people who stand on the side of the road with signs and pictures of aborted babies. Yes, we get it, you don't like it. Thanks for ruining my lunch.

I was treated to the really graphic Randall Terry anti-abortion ads several times during the primary. In fact, the last time I saw it my old lady and I just sat down to eat dinner and watch some tv and BANG! fetus corpse all up in our grills.

[Udderdude]

I understand why people are against abortion, but I don't agree with the idea that if the mother is in severe danger of death or perhaps a victim of rape that she not be allowed the option. Every grey area has reason for both arguments to be heard, there is no clean cut answer. Problem is the people who stand on the side of the road with signs and pictures of aborted babies. Yes, we get it, you don't like it. Thanks for ruining my lunch.

I was treated to the really graphic Randall Terry anti-abortion ads several times during the primary. In fact, the last time I saw it my old lady and I just sat down to eat dinner and watch some tv and BANG! fetus corpse all up in our grills.

That guy is totally nuts. Those fetus pictures are always presented with absolutely zero context, which would go a long way towards explaining just why the abortion happened. Protip: It's not because a godless atheist heathen walked into an abortion clinic, slapped her credit card on the front desk and yelled, "Murder my unborn child! This baby bump is making me look all fat and bloated!". It's never an easy decision for anyone to have to make.

[Friendly]

[Lordstar]

I understand why people are against abortion, but I don't agree with the idea that if the mother is in severe danger of death or perhaps a victim of rape that she not be allowed the option. Every grey area has reason for both arguments to be heard, there is no clean cut answer. Problem is the people who stand on the side of the road with signs and pictures of aborted babies. Yes, we get it, you don't like it. Thanks for ruining my lunch.

I can see girl getting knocked up from a drunken encounter when she was letting herself get fucked. Getting frowned apon by her peers and elders and crying rape.

She gets the abortion she wants because the law permits that if it was a pregnancy due to rape she can get it flushed and an innocent man goes to prison.

[Ed Oscuro]

It seems pretty crazy, but it does reflect some interesting issues that have been out there for longer than humanity. Most animals (and arguably many people) throughout history have treated babies as not being independent of the mother (because they aren't) but our modern conception of persons as having a distinct existence and rights clashes with this.

With regards to the paper, though, it seems like the good old fashioned is-ought fallacy. It would be great for many people if mothers could spontaneously abort (as some species do) but humans have evolved (SPOILER ALERT!!) not to be able to do this, which reflects less about our concept of a distinct existence and rights than it does human reproduction strategy. However, you could say that rights and nurturing of the intellect etc. are outgrowths of the unmatched gestation period and long maturation of a child into an adult. So, even if they are fictitious, they are useful fictions and we should not reach first for a system that allows infanticide because it obviously clashes with our working system (the "if it ain't broke" approach, although I suspect the author would appeal to burdens on society, overpopulation, etc. as a counter; I would simply say "we haven't tried the other things yet"). It is only a comparatively recent phenomenon that women can get pregnant as much as they do as a result of our success with herding resources, though, so there needs to be something to bring the balance back, but from the strict sense of rational self-interest, that means preventing babies from being born, not "let's make everybody too skinny and hungry to get pregnant" or "let's not fuck anymore until we want to have a baby" or even "let's kill children!"

In any case the paper seems to fail on at least two fronts:

- Doesn't pass the smell test - no attempt to pass even a very lenient ethical standard.
- No consideration of individual rights and no obvious process for allowing less radical acts first (maybe this second part is a bit strawman-ish).
- The rational reproduction strategy would prevent the baby from developing and being born, to save everybody a lot of waste and suffering.

I think that we still haven't looked carefully enough at spontaneous population control by the apparently universal pattern that people with better means seem to have fewer children, which is one or zero children for some couples. The poor seem set to keep throwing this off balance but better economic opportunities should encourage them to have less children in the future.

I understand why people are against abortion, but I don't agree with the idea that if the mother is in severe danger of death or perhaps a victim of rape that she not be allowed the option. Every grey area has reason for both arguments to be heard, there is no clean cut answer. Problem is the people who stand on the side of the road with signs and pictures of aborted babies. Yes, we get it, you don't like it. Thanks for ruining my lunch.

I can see girl getting knocked up from a drunken encounter when she was letting herself get fucked. Getting frowned apon by her peers and elders and crying rape.

She gets the abortion she wants because the law permits that if it was a pregnancy due to rape she can get it flushed and an innocent man goes to prison.

This is an important point, but I don't see that this paper or abortion in general will overcome the situation of a self-centered person using a rape claim to disavow their responsibility for an act.

Also, it is probably a good thing that guys should be aware that slurring tarts probably warrant a second thought before the bonk.

[undamned]

Yeah, definitely sounds like a troll. On a side note, I've never understood why dependency is ever brought up in these debates as it has zero weight in the fetus/baby argument, whatsoever. If I ever have to be put on some form of life support, will I cease to be a person?

Also, it is probably a good thing that guys should be aware that slurring tarts probably warrant a second thought before the bonk.

Ha, excellent sentence! Unfortunately, many dudes couldn't give a crap about the lucidity of their sex partners. I knew a guy in high school with a "drunk chicks rock" tee shirt with a picture of a chick passed out @ a party.
-ud

[Drum]

I might be getting my names mixed up, but iirc Peter Singer has argued the same thing, saying that even young puppies are better candidates for personhood than newborns. It's a controversial idea, natch, but it's not logically indefensible. otoh newborn-killing is also like eating the dead in that there is a huge taboo around it, despite burial/cremation being a waste of good meat. Not to mention yummy newborns.
I think the best argument against newborn-killing is that it makes sense to have a nice tidy buffer zone where we can say that it's not ok to kill late term fetuses/very young babies - if only because the progress from flailing blob of flesh to personhood is poorly understood and probably even varies from instance to instance. Further, you have to take into account the widespread horror that baby-killing causes whether or not it's entirely rational or not - it's there, and sometimes that's enough.
I don't think 2) (the argument from potential) is actually a bad argument though - it just doesn't achieve what the people making it want it to achieve.

[Ed Oscuro]

Well, Amayrta Sen and Martha Nussbaum's capabilities approach (which is an alternative to a strict utilitarian approach) would seem to call for taking into account potential, like the potential of a newborn (or a puppy) as distinct from the mother. So we don't totally lose the distinction that a person becomes distinct in some sense from their mother (and father), without having to appeal to something nebulous like rights.

I agree that this would be a case of the argument from potential not achieving what is being asked of it.

By the way, Peter Singer is coauthor of an essay in the back of this month's Foreign Policy issue: The Globalization of Animal Welfare

Possibly humorous - here's a curt summary of Peter's thoughts on infanticide and "species-cide." Guessing (from the Latin, the Greeks in the banner, and the mention of C.S. Lewis) that it's written by a Catholic apologist, but I could be wrong.

[Drum]

http://www.verumserum.com/

Catholic apologist and all-around right-wing loon.

[Randorama]

Controversy is always good to catch attention. Academia publishing is not different, in this regard.

The editors had to write down a defense for publishing the article, and some other scholars attacked the arguments in the paper.

I would guess that the paper was published not much because of the soundness of the arguments, but because of its potential for stirring up "flashy" debates.

[Udderdude]

Well, it's entire argument is a flimsy strawman. It's right up there with Atheists eat babies (as seen in the joke image macros). They knew what they were getting .. a bunch of riled up over-emotionally charged fighting. Boo.

[Ed Oscuro]

Well, it's entire argument is a flimsy strawman.

I read the abstract as suggesting that this is a view the authors themselves are putting out there.

It is possible to strawman your own argument though (provided an example with Peter Singer, too).

I still find it useful because it helps clarify the assumptions the authors are making (even if they don't admit it) and can help clarify my own thinking, to myself, which is pretty valuable too.