/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

(Continuing…)

“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.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded 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”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.

Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled 'What is the problem with euthanasia?'

He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.

Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.

What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.

Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary's University College, said: "If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say 'it's doesn't matter, she can get another one,' is that what we want to happen?

"What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new."

Referring to the term "after-birth abortion", Dr Stammers added: "This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide."

Socialism in action.

Oh look, it's this shit again.

>>9355

I just found it on news+, was it being spammed?

>>9355
Ignore these kinds of posts, It's just waxing something that was already a slope.

>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.”

So niggers aren't persons?

>>9356

Gonna keep it short since I'm on my phone.

1. Abortion is a non-issue. It's a fucking scarecrow used by parliamentarians to avoid having to talk about topics relevant to actual national management.

2. If you're pro-life and call pro-choice "baby killers" or pro-choice and call pro-life "anti-woman", you should have your voting right revoked.

3. Banning abortion isn't the way to promote population growth. Instead, the upper classes need to stop hoarding so much that people can't afford more than one kid.

4. Debating the morality of abortion is idiotic. It relies on could've-beens and religious mumbo jumbo. If tomorrow it was discovered killing babies reverses the effects of aging all the people currently crying about poor dead zygotes woukd start hoarding live babies to murder them.

>>9391
>Instead, the upper classes need to stop hoarding so much that people can't afford more than one kid.
ahahaha. Niggers and poorer immigrants seem to manage just fine, I wonder why? Some of the most unequal countries in the world (minus negro Africa) according to the World Bank's Gini index are South Africa, Haiti, Colombia and Brazil. These countries are all well above replacement. It seems as that inequality has very little to do with it.

The crux of it is rather simple, I feel. We can all afford children, we just can't all afford to raise children the way we would like. The reasons working people have small families, if any at all, are the same reasons why the 1% have small families. To the modern adult, the investment is simply not worth the return.

Some of our ancestors had huge families raised on corn, greens and gruel, and in every meaningful way, we are more fortunate than they were. As a percentage of income, having a child today costs far less than it did then. In those days, adults spend their whole lives working so they could provide, even when there was no imperative to do so. If they could afford to have families with so much less, why can't we? We're selfish. Rightly or wrongly.

Few people believe that we should illegalise abortion because it will support natural population growth. Most agree that a prohibition would be ineffectual in this regard. They want a ban because they think they would be saving lives by doing so. This is their primary motivation. It's certainly the motivation of the papo-kikes on the Torygraph at least.

> 2. If you're pro-life and call pro-choice "baby killers" or pro-choice and call pro-life "anti-woman", you should have your voting right revoked.
> 4. Debating the morality of abortion is idiotic. It relies on could've-beens and religious mumbo jumbo. If tomorrow it was discovered killing babies reverses the effects of aging all the people currently crying about poor dead zygotes woukd start hoarding live babies to murder them.
You grossly underestimate the sincerity of Christfaggots and other ethical pressure groups. In their eyes, being pro-choice meanings you are, by definition, supporting a system of mass murder. "baby killer" is an accurate label. When you perceive abortion to be an act of murder then it becomes a very important issue for which very little else can precedence. Take the same passion people have for things like genocide, whaling and infant mortality, then amplify it, this is their concern.

When one side thinks being pro-choice is tantamount to being pro-mass murder and the other thinks being pro-life is tantamount to being a misogynist or a butthurt christfag, I don't feel that the level of butthurt is equal for both camps. Some people have bombed abortion clinics to save unwanted zygotes, I have yet to see femonazis bomb a church.

And yes, if farming zygotes for stem cells became a thing, they would bomb the laboratories too.

>>9391
You are literally retarded.

"Ethics"

Are we sure theyre serious or are they pretending to be serious to discredit abortion?

It's perfectly logical.

If being a potential person isn't a basis to ban abortion, the length of time between the animal's current state and when the animal becomes a legitimate person is irrelevant. The main differences between the two situations are more emotional than moral.

The essay:
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full
>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.

>>9471
Francesca Minerva's CV.
http://www.cappe.edu.au/docs/staff-cvs/minerva.pdf
>2) July 19, 2011 What is the point of being a doctor when conscience overrules
professional duties?
>3) February 21, 2011 61-year-old woman gives birth to her own grandchild, and so
what?
>9) May 1, 2010 Oklahoma pro-life measures: preventing abortions and promoting
sadism
>12) July 15, 2009 Arificial sperm: a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle?
>22) October 13, 2008 The voluntary termination of pregnancy: a snapshot of the
Italian situation
She's a professional ethicist and these are some her essays from the past. A lot of her work is counter-factual in its approach, that is to say, it deals with the "what if" scenarios which may occur in the near future. I've checked the links too and she supports abortion but is just incredibility edgy, some might say candid, in her expression.

She gets paid to think really hard and to form logically derived at opinions, edgy opinions, mind you. I'm envious.

>>9312
Do you really need experts to tell you that abortion is murder?

>>9312
>1960s: no you stupid misogynist manpig abortion won't lead to baby killing stop with this slippery slope fallacy
>2010s: hey guys the arguments that justify abortion also justify killing babies let's kill babies
Boy I sure do love democracy.

>>9312
Well, the slippery slope is real after all!
What a surprise!
Seriously, who on /polpol/ hadnt seen this coming? Fucking Moral relativists.
Give them an Inch and they take a mile, now with "academic" approval.
I know this would happen when People used the Argument that "Hurr durr it isnt human cuz it aint adult".

>>9391
>All this typical leftist shit
Alright I will bite:

1.
1. Abortion is a non-issue. It's a fucking scarecrow used by parliamentarians to avoid having to talk about topics relevant to actual national Management
You are ignoring a Major aspect of a Society. People.
Rampant arbortions have lead to declining birth rate in Western countries.
>Actual national Management
Oh wow. Nice sublte strawman.


2. If you're pro-life and call pro-choice "baby killers" or pro-choice and call pro-life "anti-woman", you should have your voting right revoked
Wow nice Insult.
I think all liberals are subhuman Pieces of shit and deserve to be executed.
Same with lolbertarians.
Kek.
This shit should be on /pol/.

>Banning abortion isn't the way to promote population growth. Instead, the upper classes need to stop hoarding so much that people can't afford more than one kid.
Not related to this Problem, which is clearly social.

>Debating the morality of abortion is idiotic. It relies on could've-beens and religious mumbo jumbo. If tomorrow it was discovered killing babies reverses the effects of aging all the people currently crying about poor dead zygotes woukd start hoarding live babies to murder them.
All this Insult mumbo Jumbo.
Kek.

Remember, this is a typical libertarian and liberal Response to arbortion.

Slippery slope is not a fallacy.

>>9312
I'm starting to think post birth abortion at the college professor age by third parties should be legal.

>>9453

You're comparing apples and oranges.

1. You know as well as I do that niggers and immigrants get crazy hand outs, especially those who pop babies.

2. Niggers also get way more abortions than whites.

3. The cost of life in third world countries is also much lower.

4. My point about the name calling is that if you perceive people as evil on such an issue you've never known true evil and so you're not fit to talk about this.

>>9477

I guess I didn't make it clear that though this specific article wasn't posted here before, I don't think abortion is a legitimate political topic.

>>9953

1. If you think abortions are the reason for declining birthrate I invite you to provide evidence. And not just "Look at how many abortions happen!" since that doesn't take into account the number of pregnancies which would have ended in miscarriage and the such.

2. See my reply to the other post. Calling people evil over this shit is idiotic, no matter which side of the fence you're on.

3. Your implication that the middle class is just as rich as it once was is laughable.

4. Keep your "LOLOLOL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL" shit to yourself.

>>10110
Look, genius, entertain this hypothetical: your wife wants to abort your first child because of Jewish indoctrination or whatever other cause fits your bill for that.

If your wife is the perfect traditional woman that would never do that to her child, fine. Entertain this one: children are conceived, and then whatever you'd term that fledgling bundle of life inside the womb is killed. Is this, or is it not morally correct? It's a simple question.

Never mind that there are greater problems at stake and that this is blatant pop politics misdirecting as it does best. We know. Surely, after handling all of those big ideas and earth shaking issues that are far more important than abortion, you can handle this simple everyman's political conundrum?

If you follow morality far enough to its source, you find the soul, that being the intangible drive of life and nobility inherent to all existence. Therefore, you must acknowledge the existence of a soul. Life cannot exist without the soul. Life is the soul, but enough rhetoric. Now, do you term a human being with a soul to be deserving of life? And what if you wish to 'ease the pain of existence' and just kill it outright? Don't let emotion cloud your thought. We have stumbled from the realm of pop politics into the realm of metaphysics, ethics, spirituality, and esotericism. Now, it takes serious esoteric and philosophical reasoning to come to a concrete conclusion on this matter, which is exactly why it's used as misdirection: the masses will never form a consensus on this issue.

I think I've raised more questions than I've answered, but food for thought.

modest proposal when?

>>10110
1. You've got it in reverse. The welfare state (assisted housing, child support etc.) exists because of them, they don't exist because of the welfare state. Trash make families in spite of their social situation; this is because they lack providence. It doesn't matter if they're in a council home or on the streets, they will behave just the same. You're right in thinking that the welfare state has exacerbated the problem by making their situation more attractive than it was but you would be wrong in thinking the welfare class wouldn't exist without the juicy handouts.

2. And yet, they're above replacement and whites are not. Four abortions and two children still gives more children than two abortions and no children.

3. No, it's not. Wages/sales are so low that living expenses consume a greater part of their income, eg. Bengali factory workers, Ethiopian farmers. What third worlders, our ancestors and welfare class all have in common is (a) the lack of means, or (b) the lack of desire, to achieve self actualisation. Both produce the same results. If you can't improve your social situation meaningfully then you do your best so that your offspring might. In the case of trash, they fuck like rabbits with no consideration for the damaged people they bring into the world. In the end, both sorts procreate.

It's only when social mobility becomes feasible that people (type a) stop having children. The choice changes from destitution v. destitution plus children, to self actualisation and achievement v. slightly less achievement plus children. The opportunity cost is greater for women since they have the most to lose by becoming mothers.

Worse still, when type b, the myopic, the hedonistic, the selfgratifying, are rewarded for simply existing, they multiply. Everyone else is supposed to "think of the children", the non-persons, they are paid to create. So even if you subscribe to Judeo-Christian slave morality and disagree on the basis of ethics, what is irrefutable is that this system leads to an inexorable demographic crisis.

4. Then you're wrong. I don't create for what you think true evil is.


>>10075
It is. People just don't know what fallacies are anymore because schools don't teach critical thinking. Uneducated e-scholars misusing the term has only made the problem worse.

If an argument is contingent upon a slippery slope then it's fallacious. "It is raining therefore it will flood" is fallacious. "It has been raining 55mm/hr for the last 12 hours, it will flood" is not. When using a 'slippery slope' argument you have to demonstrate a precedent that makes your expectation plausible or qualify the assertion with supporting evidence.

>>10260
I didn't know that ** was short for the BBC [spoiler] tag. Neat.

>>9312
Im seriously considering hunting these fucks down and ending them.

>>9829
>>1960s: no you stupid misogynist manpig abortion won't lead to baby killing stop with this slippery slope fallacy
>>2010s: hey guys the arguments that justify abortion also justify killing babies let's kill babies
>Boy I sure do love democracy.
Democracy is a word they use for authoritarian rule. Voting and the concept of the population supporting it are lies fed to you so you don't hang those responsible.

>>10138
>I think I've raised more questions than I've answered, but food for thought.


Are you seriously this full of yourself for just rewording christian talking points?

>jews propagating murdering of non-jewish babies

yeah, nothing new here.

Just imagine how many people would go pol if they actually knew that all these disgusting anti-goyim articles were written by jews?

>>11627
Jews are monsters; rats aren't. Rats fight to survive; Jews kill, manipulate, and cheat their way so as to thrive.

>>10230

You're ultimately right, but I do think the question of "When does a person become a person?" is a diversion and an exercise in idiocy. It's a nonsensical and irrelevant question when the real issue is ending a life that would otherwise grow into any hand-wringing shitlib faggot or Jewish monster's definition of a person (ignoring the fact that Jews don't consider goyim people behind closed doors).

>>12765
Are you going to sit there and talk shit or are you going to address them?

>>10138
>Is this, or is it not morally correct? It's a simple question.
No, it's a meaningless question. There is no such thing as "morally correct". How is killing (or refusing) to kill the child "correct"? Making any kind of claim is meaningless.

>If you follow morality far enough to its source, you find the soul, that being the intangible drive of life and nobility inherent to all existence.
And this is just more meaningless mumbo jumbo. "Soul"? "Nobility inherent to all existence"? Are you asking actual questions with answers, or just making shit up that sounds warm and fuzzy? None of those things exist. How does morality (a mental framework used by humans) require me to acknowledge the existence of a soul?

>Now, do you term a human being with a soul to be deserving of life?
No.

>And what if you wish to 'ease the pain of existence' and just kill it outright?
Now this is just silly. Anyone who proposes this argument I would say is being hypocritical. Now that's something I can say is "correct" in any kind of moral framework, at least in the notion that it's logically inconsistent. If someone thinks existence is a pain, if he hasn't killed himself, he's being disingenuous.

> Now, it takes serious esoteric and philosophical reasoning to come to a concrete conclusion on this matter, which is exactly why it's used as misdirection: the masses will never form a consensus on this issue.
No, it just means that the masses will reach a consensus via other means. When an issue is to be decided in such a fashion, elites will decide for the masses and push the official "consensus" using social engineering. After all, the masses formed the "consensus" that slavery was evil in just a couple of generations after a group of elites (a particularly violent and unscrupulous bunch) decided it was evil.

>I think I've raised more questions than I've answered, but food for thought.
I think you've mostly just masturbated to spooks more than you've raised any genuine question.

>>10230
Ah yes, here we have the grain of sand paradox as applied to humans. "But when is it really a person?" There is no answer because the definition of "person" varies by person. Why does it matter if they're a person or not when you kill them? The end result is the same.

A good deal of these so-called 'philosophical questions' are more than just meaningless fiddling with language and mental constructs.

I'm just going to ask a question.

Which is preferable?
>Leaving a baby in the care of someone who doesn't want them (with the possibility of infanticide and the probability of abuse/neglect) or putting them in the care of the state (with the high probability of extreme abuse and ultimately a criminal life extending suffering to others)
>Killing the baby

I think this is the core of the issue.

>>12921
>There is no such thing as "morally correct".
Why is that?

Comparing first world childrearing to the third world doesn't work. In the former, land and homes are all owned by someone, you have to constantly work to meet rent or mortgage. Unless you inherited your family's place, you have to play the earnings game. Ignoring property tax etc. People have been steadily earning less.

If you live in such a place where you can build your shanty or hut wherever, you can have as many kids as you want without the burdens of aforementioned property mechanics. Just find food, maybe dabble in the economy to earn some money for food, medical, etc. But you don't have this sizeable, decades-long expense to keep shelter.

I suppose you could call out homesteading but that's a pretty unrealistic scenario. Tired as fuck and paraphrasing severely so hope this makes sense.

Also, hasn't infanticide been pretty well accepted throughout history?

I agree, so long as the child is mentally handicapped. I would say "severely physically disabled" too, but I love copypaste too much. <3

>>13057
>Also, hasn't infanticide been pretty well accepted throughout history?
It's only universally acceptd for deformed babies. Something in modern times used to pull on heartstrings and keep the decrepit government power structures creaking along.

>>13071
But if it's illegal to kill defective babies out of the womb, or in it, then what's the point of laws that improve society? It's pretty well proven that taking care of a Downie, an autist, or someone similarly mentally or physically disabled, is a life-long, incapacitating

>>13241
Derp, hit send. Someone defective proves an immense drain on public services. And they'll never be able to return such favors.