Gay Patriot Header Image

No Comment

Posted by V the K at 9:27 am - June 27, 2017.
Filed under: Abortion, aborting gays

Slate lays out the case for infanticide.

[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.

[I]n order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm. If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. … In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. … Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.

Share

30 Comments

  1. The Supreme Court is one retirement away from a potential 5-4 overturning of Roe vs. Wade, no? Considering the Republican rule for the next 4 – 8+ years, and the imminent retirement/death of the swing vote and one of the liberals, it’ll all change soon anyway. Maybe later, or sooner. Don’t worry, there’s a light at the end of the birth canal. And those Slate writers and pink p*ssy hats can suck it.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — June 27, 2017 @ 9:36 am - June 27, 2017

  2. Wow. That anyone could even THINK this (let alone write about it) is chilling. Absolutely chilling.

    Life is so precious. What is wrong with these people?

    Comment by Charlotte — June 27, 2017 @ 9:57 am - June 27, 2017

  3. What is wrong with these people?

    The essence of the Progressive Left philosophy is that *you* should never have to suffer the consequences of bad behavior; the state will transfer those consequences to others. If you have irresponsible sex and get “punished with a baby,” the consequences are transferred the baby.

    Comment by V the K — June 27, 2017 @ 10:00 am - June 27, 2017

  4. V the K: You are quite correct. The dehumanizing of the fetus has been ongoing since Roe. “Just a mass of tissue”, etc. That’s why the clinics don’t want women to see sonos of their baby in the womb. It humanizes the baby and if the Mom has any feelings at all, she sees that she is murdering her child.

    They act as if the baby just appeared like a disease, not caused by their own actions. This piece by Slate is just logic by their own standards.

    How sad to be so devoid of anything approaching character or responsibility that advocating murder is considered to be permissible. (and probably, in their minds, to be encouraged…overpopulation, and all that)

    What does this say about our culture and society? **hint…not good things

    Comment by Charlotte — June 27, 2017 @ 10:12 am - June 27, 2017

  5. The Progressives were horrified that Mrs. Palin didn’t abort her Down syndrome child.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — June 27, 2017 @ 10:13 am - June 27, 2017

  6. “the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus…”

    Why, yes. Yes, it is. Just not in the way you think.

    Comment by Southern Man — June 27, 2017 @ 10:17 am - June 27, 2017

  7. Can’t wait for Slate to publish an article arguing that the senile, mentally ill, and physically disabled are all non-persons and are thus prime candidates for “post-birth abortions.” And then the follow up that it would be so much more efficient to perform many “post-birth abortions” at the same time, in an impersonal, sterile manner that spares the consciences of those involved. If only there was some easy and effective way to perform a bunch of “post-birth abortions” at the same time… I know! Let’s use poison gas!

    New from Slate: I Can’t Believe it’s not Nazism!™

    Comment by Sean L — June 27, 2017 @ 11:14 am - June 27, 2017

  8. Sean L: I was thinking along those lines, as well.

    This slope is very, very slippery.

    Comment by Charlotte — June 27, 2017 @ 11:34 am - June 27, 2017

  9. I’ve seen some really terrible birth defects working in a hospital. I support the idea that some times the best thing to do is make the baby comfortable and let nature take its course. But killing a baby is a step too far for me.

    Comment by J- — June 27, 2017 @ 12:20 pm - June 27, 2017

  10. “. . . non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions.” [V the K]

    So the left’s strident calls for a Trump assassination is nothing more than a call for an after-birth abortion of the president? Delayed, somewhat, but after-birth none-the-less.

    This, of course, falls right into the current pattern of the unequal application of the law; If I like you, it’s post-birth abortion, if I don’t it’s murder (See Sean L # 7 above).

    Comment by T — June 27, 2017 @ 12:30 pm - June 27, 2017

  11. Anyone the progressives determine to be illegitimate or useful to them are eligible to be aborted according to their philosophy. If you are part of a favored group and deviate from it you are as well.

    Comment by eeyore — June 27, 2017 @ 12:30 pm - June 27, 2017

  12. Slate just laid out the case for killing every person with Down’s Syndrome, regardless of age. Someone needs to shove that in their face.

    And is Slate aware that the Communist Manifesto lays out the argument that anyone who is not a member of the Communist Party is not truly human? Perhaps they believe that all non-leftists can be killed as well?

    Oh, and as an aside to CCP, the Supreme Court can ONLY rule on cases brought before it. It CANNOT make pronouncements on previously decided cases apart from that.

    Comment by Craig Smith — June 27, 2017 @ 2:05 pm - June 27, 2017

  13. This piece by Slate…

    Slate just laid out the case for killing…

    No. To be clear: Don’t blame Slate too much. Slate’s writer, William Saletan, is reporting on an article by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, in the Journal of Medical Ethics. They did it. Saletan (Slate) criticizes them.

    I found Saletan’s piece worth reading. Giubilini and Minerva say that a newborn is incapable of valuing its own life (or feeling the loss of it) and that only people who are capable of valuing their lives have a right to it. In essence, it’s Nietzsche’s theory of the Superman. His life is more valuable than others’ because he values it more intensely (that is, he feels or decides it’s more valuable); therefore, he is a superior being with a right to dispose of others’ lives.

    But I really don’t guess that Giubilini and Minerva are Nietzscheans. That could lead them to a pro-individual direction. I would expect them to be lefties (socialists or perhaps communists).

    Their “logic”, followed to the end, would allow a politically-correct Death Panel to decide that conservatives and libertarians – you know, us hick deplorables – can be killed because we’re too dumb and misguided to value our lives in the proper, left-wing socially-oriented way. We’re not “socially conscious” enough to be actual people.

    Giubilini and Minerva write:

    Actual people’s well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of.

    The logical endpoint is to say that “the community” or the State is threatened – by, say, President Trump, or by conservatives or right-leaning libertarians. You know, like what Senator Franken is out there saying right now (that reforming Obamacare will kill thousands of people). Or what left-wing media drummed into that would-be Congress-killer, James T. Hodgkinson.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 27, 2017 @ 2:25 pm - June 27, 2017

  14. Only from the minds of sadistic 2%er Mengele types………RIP, 1955-2016. Keep doing what you’re doing, 2%ers, we need super majorities in the Senate and the House in 2018.

    Comment by rjligier — June 27, 2017 @ 2:58 pm - June 27, 2017

  15. Oh, hell no. period. full stop.

    Comment by TheQuietMan — June 27, 2017 @ 3:22 pm - June 27, 2017

  16. V the K,
    I agree with what ILoveCapitalism wrote–he points out that this is not Slate per se, but rather a critique. I don’t know if Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva’s position would allow for ILoveCapitalism’s end game of “aborting” adults, but I wondered the same thing as him. As they argue:

    “There is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms it from a fetus into a person.”

    If birth is not a clear demarcation poin for themt, then I wonder what is? What criteria do they offer for when personhood is established?

    Comment by Cas — June 27, 2017 @ 3:45 pm - June 27, 2017

  17. Cas,

    To answer your question, I point to ILC’s quote from those being critiqued:

    Giubilini and Minerva say that a newborn is incapable of valuing its own life (or feeling the loss of it) and that only people who are capable of valuing their lives have a right to it.

    This, BTW, is exactly the argument used by PP, Radical Islam, and Communists (and to a lesser extent, Socialists) to justify abortion, the killing of infidels (because if the truly valued their life, they would, of course, submit to Allah), and the slaughter of non-Communists (or anyone defined by Socialists to not be fully human).

    Comment by Craig Smith — June 27, 2017 @ 4:03 pm - June 27, 2017

  18. Right-wing conservatives oppose abortion. Even if they finally discover a gene that causes people to be gay the right-wing will still oppose abortion.

    Yet, we are called “Nazis”.

    Comment by Beaches — June 27, 2017 @ 4:38 pm - June 27, 2017

  19. @ ILC: Well thank God somebody at Slate has a conscience.

    Comment by Sean L — June 27, 2017 @ 5:11 pm - June 27, 2017

  20. Havin’ babies is high risk!

    There are many who gave high risk pregnancies
    That end in death of both the mother and the baby

    And birth defects and underdeveloped little ones
    struggle to even make it minutes, hours and even days in CU
    before life sustaining measures are lifted.

    My niece is expected to deliver a little one on 9/11
    But she and her hubby were informed of underdeveloped
    heart so my niece will spend 3-4 weeks in a Denver
    Special unit under supervision and a team of experts will do
    Surgery in hopes of correcting the defects.
    There is only a 20% chance of survival. There is a family
    Priest who will stay at the hospital to provide support and
    Quickly baptize the little one.

    So very sad. I will probably fly out after news of the surgery

    Comment by rusty — June 27, 2017 @ 5:38 pm - June 27, 2017

  21. Have not gave

    Comment by rusty — June 27, 2017 @ 5:39 pm - June 27, 2017

  22. As someone who leans pro choice early on, but becomes pro life later in the pregnancy, Slate is totally off the wall, calling for killing infants. So you kill an infant if they are retarded? Perhaps snuff them out if they are ugly?

    Frankly, I know I will get grief for this comment, but some of these lefties should have been aborted so we don’t have to face them nowadays.

    Comment by davinci38 — June 27, 2017 @ 6:01 pm - June 27, 2017

  23. rusty. My great neice was born with several heart issues. When they were first detected, their doctor told them abortion should be high on their list of options. E was born on Halloween 2015. Surgery followed. So did 3 months in the hospital. The surgery corrected the major issue. The other issues, to the surprise of her two teams of doctors, simply disappeared. Lil Miss E is doing very well.

    Don’t give up Hope and prayers.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — June 27, 2017 @ 8:22 pm - June 27, 2017

  24. Sean L. @7: George Bernard Shaw, call your service. I trust you will understand the reference, and do some homework. Folks, we’ve been down this road many times. It doesn’t end well.

    Comment by Bastiat_Fan — June 27, 2017 @ 8:57 pm - June 27, 2017

  25. George Bernard Shaw was apparently a fan of Hitler and Stalin

    Comment by James — June 27, 2017 @ 10:12 pm - June 27, 2017

  26. Thanks Craig James for the insight. That distinction is one you could drive a truck through…. sheesh

    Comment by Cas — June 28, 2017 @ 2:23 am - June 28, 2017

  27. In the old days, a physician might “lay a newborn aside” and attend to the mother as the newborn “failed to survive.”

    Now we have an incredible ability to know a great deal about the individual developing fetus and mostly, new borns come into the world (in the US) with more than fighting chances.

    I am pro-life. But I am not anti-abortion. I hate abortion, but it is something I (perhaps cowardly) prefer to turn over to the mother and the physician. (I would include the father, but that would send social warriors on the warpath accusing me of misogyny.)

    Obama favored letting the fetus who survives a botched abortion to be post-birth aborted. He wrote about it.

    Roe v Wade is terrible jurisprudence because the SCOTUS presumed to understand the terms of pre-natal medical science as a circumstance frozen at 1972.

    My preference is to turn the whole issue back to the states. That would mean, that Planned Parenthood would have to run busses to nearby or not so nearby states in order to serve their mission of “women’s health.” And maybe the states could have “wet” counties and “dry” counties where women could travel shorter distances to have the fetus killed.

    And, by the way, the fetus is life and it is human life; never has a surprise aardvark or baby turkey buzzard come through a human birth canal. So, when that human life within the womb is ended, it is killed. “Killed” meaning death by circumstances. It is not a synonym for “murder.” But the “poor-choice” crowd will turn themselves inside out to avoid even talking about what is happening. And then Planned Parenthood sells the baby parts for high dollars.

    The left has built a mare’s nest of hypocrisy around abortion and they can only scream and demonize in defense of this heartbreaking decision and act.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 28, 2017 @ 4:42 am - June 28, 2017

  28. Everyone with an opinion on abortion needs to read this. Between the article and the comments you will get a complete overview of the arguments. The article is dispassionate and from that you should get chills running up your spine. SCOTUS rules dispassionately. “A woman’s Right to chose”, “fetus not a viable life”, voila Abortion is a right. This article shows you how far you can take reason and logic and who knows where they want to go. Who is “they”? It only takes a 5 to 4 vote to create a monster and “they” know it.

    Comment by Jerry — June 28, 2017 @ 9:05 am - June 28, 2017

  29. rusty – I’m praying a little here and there, for your family. Good luck!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 29, 2017 @ 5:56 pm - June 29, 2017

  30. Thx ILC and Tnns

    Comment by rusty — June 30, 2017 @ 11:33 am - June 30, 2017

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.