Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → Philosophers advocate killing newborns

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Yesterday at 01:32 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 09:01 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 08:53 AM
New Britain
November 29, 2024, 08:17 AM
Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Philosophers advocate killing newborns

 (Read 12978 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #60 - March 04, 2012, 06:13 AM
    Quote
    Abortion is not "killing babies" if you are, in fact, killing a zygote. To call all abortion "killing babies" is just emotive rubbish. You can start applying the "killing babies" thing to late term abortions, but not to early ones.

     

    I remember my ustadz telling me,  man who wank kill future babiez Cheesy
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #61 - March 04, 2012, 06:32 AM
    Quote from: Raccoon Rapist on March 03, 2012, 09:53 PM
    No it didn't. The authors are hacks. It's just a lazy utilitarian calculation that Singer did years before they did, and their attempts to deny newborns as persons with a right to life was a big fail-- they barely tried, and they did acknowledge newborns possessed some rights. If you're going to acknowledge the existence of rights, and at the same time say it's morally acceptable to kill infants, you better do a better job of making that case than these guys did.

    Ok, but that doesn't mean that the case cannot be made. It just means that in your opinion the authors of this paper didn't do a very good job of it.


    Quote
    Basically their entire argument for why it's okay is because they don't consider babies to be people with the same rights as older people because they cannot form thoughts in the same manner. Fuckin seriously? So now it's okay to kill schizophrenics, retards, and anyone else who processes information differently than the norm? I know, I know, you can't necessarily draw that conclusion from what they wrote-- but that's my whole point-- they didn't delve into details or attempt to justify their argument effectively.

    Sure, but then we already have precedents for basically killing people who cannot form thoughts. Admittedly persistent vegetative states are generally not quite the same thing as what is proposed in this paper. However, what about the case of a baby that suffers brain damage during birth and is rendered a vegetable as a result? Precedent would already suggest that in a case like this, killing the baby would be acceptable.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #62 - March 04, 2012, 08:53 AM
    Quote from: z10 on March 04, 2012, 04:11 AM
    I think all self-improvement is masturbation really.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42cSdyzVcXQ
    An alternative to religion;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #63 - March 04, 2012, 01:52 PM
    I actually spoke to the guy who co-authored it (Alberto Giubilini), it makes perfect sense if you actually read the argument rather then tabloid b.s. its a ranging debate about qualia.
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #64 - March 04, 2012, 02:50 PM
    Quote from: strangestdude on March 04, 2012, 08:53 AM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42cSdyzVcXQ



    hahaha awesome
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #65 - March 04, 2012, 03:37 PM
    Quote
    Quote
    Raccoon says:  No it didn't. The authors are hacks. It's just a lazy utilitarian calculation that Singer did years before they did, and their attempts to deny newborns as persons with a right to life was a big fail-- they barely tried, and they did acknowledge newborns possessed some rights. If you're going to acknowledge the existence of rights, and at the same time say it's morally acceptable to kill infants, you better do a better job of making that case than these guys did.

    Quote from: Evil Professor osmanthus responds on March 04, 2012, 06:32 AM
    Ok, but that doesn't mean that the case cannot be made. It just means that in your opinion the authors of this paper didn't do a very good job of it.


    In the name of progress, in the name of improving the  coefficient efficiency of workers, we can think and make  all sorts of cases., For e.g. In a factory if the worker is not efficient slaughter them as Eid cows are slaughtered ., I am sure rest of the workers work harder than they used to be until their death. Clearly factory out put per worker will go up..  We can write some silly papers and we can also defend it in the name of freedom of expression. So what..

    Quote
    Raccoon says:Basically their entire argument for why it's okay is because they don't consider babies to be people with the same rights as older people because they cannot form thoughts in the same manner. Fuckin seriously? So now it's okay to kill schizophrenics, retards, and anyone else who processes information differently than the norm? I know, I know, you can't necessarily draw that conclusion from what they wrote-- but that's my whole point-- they didn't delve into details or attempt to justify their argument effectively.

    Quote from: Evil Professor osmanthus responds on March 04, 2012, 06:32 AM
    Sure, but then we already have precedents for basically killing people who cannot form thoughts.  Admittedly persistent vegetative states are generally not quite the same thing as what is proposed in this paper. However, what about the case of a baby that suffers brain damage during birth and is rendered a vegetable as a result? Precedent would already suggest that in a case like this, killing the baby would be acceptable.

    Then why are you even comparing with a patient who is in a  persistent vegetative state  and they themselves would like to stop the their  life force with  toddlers, babies and little  kids??  That is again a very specific case., does that paper talk such specific cases??  And.. CHANGE THE HEADING OF TOPIC  to make any sense of what you are trying to defend. And..and.,  any fellow who has basic medical science background understands., if the baby was alright in the womb but  suffers brain damage during birth,  it means that is a terrible accident and some one has to pay to let the kid live as long he/she can..   We have people  on this earth that are blind, or missing limbs or THEIR DICKS don't work .. why don't we send all of them to Allah heavens., that will improve life style those who are living on this wretched earth ...

    silly game .. foolish publications..  Yap kill them all
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #66 - March 04, 2012, 04:40 PM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on March 04, 2012, 12:40 AM
    But anyway, I agree with Os. While it's probably an insane idea, it's a good opportunity to solidify some fundamental beliefs.

    So, question, how different is this to aborting a foetus because its quality of life will likely be severely compromised by a medical condition, assuming the pregnancy itself has no bearing on the mother's decision?

    Ok let me start again - do people think late-term abortions because of severe defects are ok?
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #67 - March 04, 2012, 05:17 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on March 04, 2012, 06:32 AM
    Ok, but that doesn't mean that the case cannot be made. It just means that in your opinion the authors of this paper didn't do a very good a horrible job of it.


    Corrected.

    Quote from: osmanthus on March 04, 2012, 06:32 AM
    Sure, but then we already have precedents for basically killing people who cannot form thoughts. Admittedly persistent vegetative states are generally not quite the same thing as what is proposed in this paper. However, what about the case of a baby that suffers brain damage during birth and is rendered a vegetable as a result? Precedent would already suggest that in a case like this, killing the baby would be acceptable.


    Infants can't form thoughts in the same way as older folks, but I have yet to see evidence they cannot form thoughts at all. If you have some I'll take a look.
    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #68 - March 04, 2012, 05:24 PM
    Quote from: Raccoon Rapist on March 04, 2012, 05:17 PM
    Corrected.

    Infants can't form thoughts in the same way as older folks,     but I have yet to see evidence they cannot form thoughts at all. If you have some I'll take a look.


    what is this  thought thing Raccoon ??  Response to stimulus?? response  to  the language  and words of adults??
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #69 - March 04, 2012, 06:10 PM
    Quote from: paranoid on March 04, 2012, 06:13 AM


    I remember my ustadz telling me,  man who wank kill future babiez Cheesy
    [/quote
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMx6X26iJ_c


    Bugger the quote function!

    Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #70 - March 04, 2012, 07:58 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on March 04, 2012, 06:32 AM
    Ok, but that doesn't mean that the case cannot be made. It just means that in your opinion the authors of this paper didn't do a very good job of it.

    Sure, but then we already have precedents for basically killing people who cannot form thoughts. Admittedly persistent vegetative states are generally not quite the same thing as what is proposed in this paper. However, what about the case of a baby that suffers brain damage during birth and is rendered a vegetable as a result? Precedent would already suggest that in a case like this, killing the baby would be acceptable.


    As far as I know, in cases like these it is often many years before the extent of the brain damage becomes clear.
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #71 - March 04, 2012, 09:16 PM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on March 04, 2012, 04:40 PM
    Ok let me start again - do people think late-term abortions because of severe defects are ok?


    I've always been anti-abortionist, unless there is a severe disability for the unborn-child or risk of death for the mother. However, we should err on the side of no-abortion in answer to your question above.

    Pro-abortionists please see:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JmA2ClUvUY
    Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #72 - March 04, 2012, 10:30 PM
    Quote from: Raccoon Rapist on March 04, 2012, 05:17 PM
    Infants can't form thoughts in the same way as older folks, but I have yet to see evidence they cannot form thoughts at all. If you have some I'll take a look.

    You didn't deal with my point. What about the case of a baby that suffers brain damage during birth and is rendered a vegetable as a result? Precedent would already suggest that in a case like this, killing the baby would be acceptable.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #73 - March 04, 2012, 10:38 PM
    Yeah, so? Such euthanasia would be permissible for adults provided that they expressed a wish for it prior to entering into that state, or their will can at least be supposed. With infants that's not part of the picture-- the parent would have to make the call.

    But things like that aren't what the primary point of contention I have with the article-- it's the authors' beliefs that in all cases where abortion is permissible, infanticide is also-- that's the part I think is total bullshit.
    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #74 - March 04, 2012, 10:51 PM
    Quote from: Raccoon Rapist on March 04, 2012, 10:38 PM
    Yeah, so? Such euthanasia would be permissible for adults provided that they expressed a wish for it prior to entering into that state, or their will can at least be supposed. With infants that's not part of the picture-- the parent would have to make the call.

    Such euthanasia is already permissible even for those who expressed no wish, and whose will cannot actually be supposed. The call is always made by other people.

    My point here, and I speak as someone who has been involved in such situations, is that in these cases the grounds for killing the person are one or both of the following:

    1/ The person has already gone, and what is left is not really a person.

    2/ That withdrawal of medical support is not really killing, it's just "allowing nature to take its course".

    The latter is obviously just a polite fiction, intended to make the act easier. In reality, it's still a deliberate decision to kill.

    The former is the only argument that holds any water.


    Quote
    But things like that aren't what the primary point of contention I have with the article-- it's the authors' beliefs that in all cases where abortion is permissible, infanticide is also-- that's the part I think is total bullshit.

    Yes I understand that. Persistent vegetative states were mentioned in the paper though, as one of the examples. They form part of the basis for the authors' attempts to extend the concept of when it is permissible to end someone else's life.

    Do note that personally I have no particular interest in killing infants. If I decide I really need a new hobby, I'll probably choose something else. However, I'm still interested in what arguments can be made for an against this sort of thing, and it seems to me that "ZOMG BABIES!" is not much of an argument.

    Given the seriousness of this sort of discussion, I'll also note that for this particular thread I'll be ignoring all posts by Tut and Yeez. Nothing personal lads, but these issues deserve better than gibberish.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #75 - March 04, 2012, 10:55 PM
    Quote from: King Tut on March 04, 2012, 09:16 PM
    I've always been anti-abortionist, unless there is a severe disability for the unborn-child

    Even after the foetus is 'viable'? I was under the impression, and I may be wrong, that most people who weren't staunchly 'pro-life' were ok with this sort of abortion and, again someone correct me if I'm wrong, it's legal in the UK.
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #76 - March 04, 2012, 11:02 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on March 04, 2012, 10:51 PM
    Such euthanasia is already permissible even for those who expressed no wish, and whose will cannot actually be supposed. The call is always made by other people.

    My point here, and I speak as someone who has been involved in such situations, is that in these cases the grounds for killing the person are one or both of the following:

    1/ The person has already gone, and what is left is not really a person.

    2/ That withdrawal of medical support is not really killing, it's just "allowing nature to take its course".

    The latter is obviously just a polite fiction, intended to make the act easier. In reality, it's still a deliberate decision to kill.

    The former is the only argument that holds any water.


    I'd dispute that last sentence, but all of this is irrelevant anyways.

    Here's how I see our little debate has developed so far: You post article that contends in all cases where abortion is permissible, so is infanticide--> I say that's total bullshit and the people who wrote it are idiots--> You point out one instance where infanticide would be acceptable--> I say so what and point out it would be acceptable for adults in many instances as well, and mention that's not the point of the article I'm disputing--> You keep talking about that one situation you picked out.

    Quote
    Yes I understand that.


    Okay then stop bugging me with examples that aren't enough to support the main point which I still say is bullshit and will forever say is bullshit, cause it's bullshit.
    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #77 - March 04, 2012, 11:06 PM
    The point of the article is that we already permit killing "people" who, in some sense, we regard as "not really people".
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #78 - March 04, 2012, 11:09 PM
    No it's not.
    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #79 - March 04, 2012, 11:13 PM
    That appears to be the basis of their argument for extending the conditions under which it is permissible.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #80 - March 04, 2012, 11:19 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on March 04, 2012, 11:13 PM
    That appears to be the basis of their argument for extending the conditions under which it is permissible.

    But do we really want to cross that line? We have a nice, clear thick marker at birth which very, very few people are willing to traverse. Even if it is just rationalisations that we try to invoke to prevent that, it's sensible, no? Nature hasn't given us neat little boundaries, what better place to put that line, be it arbitrary or not?
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #81 - March 04, 2012, 11:20 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on March 04, 2012, 11:13 PM
    That appears to be the basis of their argument for extending the conditions under which it is permissible.


    Yes, and, again, it's not nearly enough. The article is shit, the argument presented is shit, the evidence provided is shit, the conclusion is shit.
    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #82 - March 04, 2012, 11:24 PM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on March 04, 2012, 11:19 PM
    But do we really want to cross that line? We have a nice, clear thick marker at birth which very, very few people are willing to traverse. Even if it is just rationalisations that we try to invoke to prevent that, it's sensible, no? Nature hasn't given us neat little boundaries, what better place to put that line, be it arbitrary or not?

    The argument from legislative convenience? Yup, as far as I can tell that is one of the best arguments against this. We need a functioning legal system, and that means legal lines have to be drawn in some places. Unless there is a pressing need to legalise infanticide, you can make a good case for leaving the line where it currently is.

    I'm surprised it took anyone else so long to point this out, since it occurred to me when I was reading the paper (in less than ten minutes).
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #83 - March 04, 2012, 11:29 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on March 04, 2012, 11:24 PM
    The argument from legislative convenience? Yup, as far as I can tell that is one of the best arguments against this. We need a functioning legal system, and that means legal lines have to be drawn in some places. Unless there is a pressing need to legalise infanticide, you can make a good case for leaving the line where it currently is.

    I'm surprised it took anyone else so long to point this out, since it occurred to me when I was reading the paper (in less than ten minutes).

    Well it was the first thing that came to mind but I was looking for something more solid. I'm all out of rationalisations now though. I do believe late-term abortions should be allowed if tests show up something that would condemn the foetus to a life of severe pain and misery, but I would not be ok with an 'abortion' if the problem is only discovered after the birth. And I can't come up with anything other than the slippery-slope argument.
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #84 - March 04, 2012, 11:32 PM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on March 04, 2012, 11:29 PM
    Well it was the first thing that came to mind but I was looking for something more solid.

    Fair nuff. Me too. Wink


    Quote
    I'm all out of rationalisations now though. I do believe late-term abortions should be allowed if tests show up something that would condemn the foetus to a life of severe pain and misery, but I would not be ok with an 'abortion' if the problem is only discovered after the birth. And I can't come up with anything other than the slippery-slope argument.

    Which really is not that satisfying or robust.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #85 - March 04, 2012, 11:35 PM
    That's ethics for ya
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #86 - March 04, 2012, 11:41 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on March 03, 2012, 12:19 PM
    Odd that someone who is interested in philosophy would not be interested in one of the few practical applications of it. Surely this is one of the few areas where it could possibly do some real good.

    Just sayin'.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #87 - March 04, 2012, 11:47 PM
    I have an interest in ethics, I just don't want rationalisations to control my life. I'm not a hedonist or whatever, but I'm not hung up on being 'moral' for the sake of being moral.
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #88 - March 05, 2012, 12:24 AM
    Quote from: Raccoon Rapist on March 03, 2012, 11:12 AM
    Notice all these baby-killing asshole philosophers, including Singer, are from Australia? The problem isn't philosophers, it's Australians.


     Cheesy
    "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
            Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

    - John Keats
  • Re: Philosophers advocate killing newborns
     Reply #89 - March 05, 2012, 12:33 AM
    Quote from: Al-Ma`arri on March 05, 2012, 12:24 AM
    Cheesy

     well that is bad.. but..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3znXsldzMRo
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »