Wirehead Studios

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

I don't even like the human race, and even I can see what's wrong with this.

It's actually pretty hilarious, since I'm one of those "insane, filthy liberals" that sees no problem with abortion*. I cannot even take this seriously from a theoretical perspective. It's a ridiculous concept that is automatically proven to be silly in the light of any confrontation with practice (case studies, 'common sense', biological priming, whatever). I'm not offended by this, I just have to laugh -- and wonder why I'm not reading this on The Onion.

If it is serious, then it's probably a case of bad reporting -- reporters making mountains out of mole-hills. If I know ethicists, and I do, I know it's part of their jobs to question everything. This sounds like it's a thought experiment, taking the "right to life"-argument for a ride and basically showing that it's not enough to base your actions on a theoretical construct of that kind.

In the unlikely case that there's actually, really "a group" of scholars who seriously propose an actual practice of  "babykilling," then apparently they allow utter morons to be "ethicists" in Oxford nowadays.

* which of course does not mean I see no problem in dumb teens sporking around with pregnancy like it's a hobby. Et cetera. Let's not do the straw-man-dance.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts.. after the initial facepalm, of course.

I honestly couldn't make it past the first paragraph of the article because I couldn't take it seriously enough to continue.

Here's the actual BMJ entry:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full.pdf+html

If a baby is still a "fetus" even though it's detached from the mother, then when does it stop being morally equivalent?  Where is the delineation?  For abortion the delineation has traditionally been "baby inside womb == fetus, baby outside womb == infant".  To me this is turning logic completely on its head.  All this talk of "potential" persons... A sperm cell and an egg cell are "potential" persons.  Once they're joined they're pretty much on their way to making an adult creature eventually, unless the process is interrupted either by accident or intentional interference.  That's not an ethical opinion, that's simply the facts of the biological process.  If this defining of a person is to be arbitrary and any time post-birth, then who decides when someone is in fact a person and when they're not?  If infants can be killed due to genetic defects, then what is the criteria of what is genetically acceptable?

The reason this is madness to me is that this is nothing new.  There's a word for this - eugenics.  You kill off society's "undesirables" so that the species can be "improved".  This kind of ethical thinking was going on at the turn of the 20th century.  It was picked up by the Nazis and formed the backbone of their push for racial purity, which led to the massacre of millions of Jews, Poles, and countless others.  The fact that society has reached a point where, once again, this kind of corrupt reasoning is openly espoused demonstrates the truth of the old maxim that the only thing humans learn from history is that humans learn nothing from history.

I've always thought infanticide seemed to already be considered a woman's right in certain circles. Every time a mother kills her infant and gets some slap on the wrist sentence, assuming she dose not get acquitted on some flimsy post-partum depression  gibberish I'm reminded of this.  Of course as a father, I am sickened by the idea that anyone would want to kill their own children, be it by murder or neglect. Yet i cannot say that i am pro-life, not because i'm in favour of abortion, because i'm not but because i'm passionately supportive of the death penalty, particularly when people throw their babies into dumpsters so they can get high.

 

The things some people will say to get in the papers >_<

Being a "pro-lifer", I am bizarrely in agreement with the statement, as I don't agree with abortion, either.

As for bad reporting, well it is the Telegraph :P

May birds have greater wisdom.

And just when you think they couldn't raise the bar even higher. Psych!