Another great leap forward

[teamsaint]

and the age limit would be...............????

Freedom of speech does have arbitrary limits set on it by society .These limits should be set very generously,and very carefully.

We would be a better society if we were less tolerant of this kind of opinion,however well argued,

Killing people is wrong. It's wrong to execute people. its wrong to kill babies. even to discuss it is very dangerous, and it would without any shadow of a doubt, be the start of a more widespread programme.

The fact that it is possible to suggest with a degree of coherence that this is just a logical extension of an arbitrary time limit abortion is neither here nor there.Agree or disagree with abortion laws, there is no good reason to disregard the moment of birth as a moment where an absolute right to life can begin.

[kernelbogey]

Killing people is wrong. It's wrong to execute people.

Yet in this country we have a huge arms industry and have supported wars in which civilians, including babies, have been killed.

The fact that it is possible to suggest with a degree of coherence that this is just a logical extension of an arbitrary time limit abortion is neither here nor there.

I didn't mean to suggest that: I meant that the date of termination as defined in law could be argued to be earlier or later within the pregnancy.

[...]there is no good reason to disregard the moment of birth as a moment where an absolute right to life can begin.

I agree.

[Serial_Apologist]

The fact that it is possible to suggest with a degree of coherence that this is just a logical extension of an arbitrary time limit abortion is neither here nor there.Agree or disagree with abortion laws, there is no good reason to disregard the moment of birth as a moment where an absolute right to life can begin.

I completely agree.

I think a majority in this civilised nation of ours would say that the moment the infant has independent physical existence outside the womb, the issue of killing or not is a non-question.

By all means put forward the contrary argument; then be prepared to have it shot down, discussed once and for all time, so that people genuinely involved in science for the betterment of human (and other) kind can get on with their expensive and time-consuming work.

S-A

[teamsaint]

[QUOTE=kernelbogey;137790]Yet in this country we have a huge arms industry and have supported wars in which civilians, including babies, have been killed.


Quite.
Its easy to take our eye off the ball.
This(what ought to be) non issue of killing babies indeed distracts from really big issues like our governments' enthusiastic support of the arms industry.

However, there IS an agenda for wholesale population reduction out there, and it needs careful monitoring. There are plenty more where Jeremy Grantham comes from. (and I mean the population reduction lobby, not Doncaster !!)

[Serial_Apologist]

If it makes someone a profit it adds to GNP - that's the only measure which counts in the final anal-ysis in their view.

Sorry - off-topic.

[teamsaint]

If it makes someone a profit it adds to GNP - that's the only measure which counts in the final anal-ysis in their view.

Sorry - off-topic.

not sure it really is off topic, as KB suggests.
Big picture is important. Collateral damage, disregard for the lives of the newborn, unfettered arms trading........not good for the people, good for the greedy few.

[Lateralthinking1]

What he also says is:"This extension of the existing debate around infanticide from medical indications to social indications is relatively novel. I don’t personally agree with it. But their arguments – based on the similar moral status of the fetus and neonate – call for rebuttal."

Good morning frenchfrank. There is hardly any existing debate around infanticide except in his dark academic towers. If the key reference points are Aristotle; tribes in Africa, often historical; and a tiny minority sect in the Netherlands, largely condemned, then it is no debate at all. The phrase "from medical indications to social indications" is weasel worded as is "I don't personally agree with it". What is "it"? Infanticide, legislation on infanticide, the debate on infanticide, the links with abortion being made by the authors? That's not science. Perhaps he should go back to making populist clips with fluorescent green rabbits - or return to Australia.

When the death threats started, he amended his commentary, became explicit in his disagreement, and published an alternative view. Until then, it was a piece that had been "peer reviewed", endorsed and published to stand without much comment. He has a history of sounding open-minded about such things and an unhealthy interest in euthanasia. The point about rebuttal of course has been twisted around. It is the authors who are rebutting ethical consensus. Furthermore it has nothing to do with genetic science which is being permitted to be vaguely interlinked so that what is said appears to have more credibility.

The journal is a specialist one dedicated to matters of ethics. How can there be a philosophical debate about anything if one side is gagged? The opinions have been put forward: should an editor refuse to give them coverage because he finds them morally repugnant or simply disagrees? What is a journal on ethics for if not to discuss ethical questions?

"Freedom of speech is either the freedom to say things that others find detestable or it is no freedom at all. And this freedom imposes an equally stringent duty. We are all obliged to tolerate the expression of what we find detestable."
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk...dom-of-speech/

That is an argument for permitting intellectual reassessments of all sorts of immorality - the mass extermination by gas chamber, the victimisation of specific social groups, including religions, the deliberate torturing of animals in research and child abuse. All these too for the British Medical Journal? Sorry but if the elites need even further outlets for their sadistic instincts, I'm not as an ordinary member of the public going to tolerate it, particularly if they are in a journal that gives them a supposedly lawful way of pursuing them. Funny how it is that in this so-called country of free speech, we are all here having to word our comments about the researchers so as not to be unlawful - goodness me we mustn't upset these cold hard adults and call them nasty playground names - yet they could probably publish an article saying "Let's reconsider the arguments about gassing Jews". It's warped.

[french frank]

Well, I'm sure Cardinal O'Brien would agree with you on this. Funny old world.

[Serial_Apologist]

Well, I'm sure Cardinal O'Brien would agree with you on this. Funny old world.

Who was it said: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to stand aside?

[french frank]

Agree or disagree with abortion laws, there is no good reason to disregard the moment of birth as a moment where an absolute right to life can begin.

But in terms of a debate on ethics, is there any reason to regard the moment of birth in that way? What are the moral arguments for putting it at that point (rather than earlier)?

[Lateralthinking1]

But in terms of a debate on ethics, is there any reason to regard the moment of birth in that way? What are the moral arguments for putting it at that point (rather than earlier)?

1. Yes - every reason.
2. Because it is, just as a cat is a cat and a dog is a dog.

If we start to say that pregnancy, birth, life and death are all interchangeable, then we have far greater mental health problems than any of the poor people I met when working at Cane Hill Hospital.

It is effectively a recipe for an immoral, incoherent, dysfunctional, psychedelic, world.

[Lateralthinking1]

Trees.......a sapling is not a "partial tree". It is a growing tree and no less than whole than as a tree is whole for it is as one would expect. Of course, it might wither away if there are a lot of predatory weeds in the garden.

[Serial_Apologist]

But in terms of a debate on ethics, is there any reason to regard the moment of birth in that way? What are the moral arguments for putting it at that point (rather than earlier)?

A human existence capable of independent life assumes priority over arguments prioritising the rights of the pregnant mother over the foetus, or not, as the case is often put by those who see sacred inviolability implanted at the moment of conception. Beyond, history decides the moral arguments, as I would see it.

[scottycelt]

Who was it said: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to stand aside?

That is very true ...

However, the statement assumes that we have all the same concepts of good and evil. (oh, what bliss!)

One has only to browse through some of the more 'controversial' threads here to realise that this is, sadly, very far from the case.

[teamsaint]

But in terms of a debate on ethics, is there any reason to regard the moment of birth in that way? What are the moral arguments for putting it at that point (rather than earlier)?

All that I am saying is that it is a very sensible, easy point at which to lay down an absolute standard.

People can argue the rest any way they like.

There can be strong cases both for and against having a point earlier in life, but regardless, there can be NO reason to go over the very clear moment of birth. it may not be a moral point as such, but it makes moral sense to say that we cannot , and indeed do not wish to, cross the line.

Our society has determined that abortion is allowable.
It shouldn't extend that beyond a very clear point in the life cycle.

If some brilliant ethical philospher can out argue us ordinary souls, then so be it. You can always find somebody smart enough to argue any line of thought well.
What I REALLY object to is the kind of agenda that is behind the publication of this kind of report. (see Jeremy Grantham ).

As regards Moral arguments, it may well be , for instance, that pro lifers would want to fight this issue alongside those who accept abortion, without reopening the complex arguments around abortion.So it has to be a practical stance, rather than a purely moral one.
Though how there can be any moral argument about killing babies is beyond my simple brain !!