Catholic FAQ


We were unable to reach our goal for the summer but we have reached 98%
Please consider donating if you can and keep us in your prayers.


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Moral Theology
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Feb 23, '14, 6:00 pm
markomalley markomalley is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2006
Posts: 7,104
Religion: Catholic
Default After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? [Article from Journal of Medical Ethics]

Was made aware of this article published back in 2012 in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
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.
Take a few minutes and read the whole thing.

Your thoughts?

(Oh, btw, my thoughts: may God have mercy on us)
__________________

Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good -- Pope Leo XIII

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Feb 23, '14, 7:43 pm
petra22's Avatar
petra22 petra22 is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: June 22, 2010
Posts: 1,773
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? [Article from Journal of Medical Ethics]

My thoughts exactly. How can God still love us??? May He have mercy on us and forgive us our arrogance...
__________________
God would not vouchsafe you the desire to be the Victim of His Merciful Love,were this not a favor in store...God never inspires a longing which He cannot fulfill. --St. Therese of Lisieux (Autobiography)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Feb 23, '14, 7:54 pm
SuzanneD SuzanneD is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2013
Posts: 144
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? [Article from Journal of Medical Ethics]

Even so come Lord Jesus.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Feb 23, '14, 7:57 pm
christus_vincit's Avatar
christus_vincit christus_vincit is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2014
Posts: 399
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? [Article from Journal of Medical Ethics]

This is just one horrifying example of what will come of making "personhood" arbitrary.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Feb 23, '14, 8:10 pm
GEddie GEddie is offline
Forum Elder
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 49,626
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? [Article from Journal of Medical Ethics]

Quote:
Originally Posted by markomalley View Post
Was made aware of this article published back in 2012 in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
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.
Take a few minutes and read the whole thing.

Your thoughts?

(Oh, btw, my thoughts: may God have mercy on us)

In what way is this a surprise?

Once abortion on demand became acceptable up to birth, this was inevitable.

Purgatory, here we come.

ICXC NIKA.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Feb 23, '14, 8:27 pm
meltzerboy meltzerboy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 9,486
Religion: Jewish
Default Re: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? [Article from Journal of Medical Ethics]

Quote:
Originally Posted by markomalley View Post
Was made aware of this article published back in 2012 in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
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.
Take a few minutes and read the whole thing.

Your thoughts?

(Oh, btw, my thoughts: may God have mercy on us)
It is a chilling article, even more so in that it allows not only for "after-birth abortion" of a newborn who suffers from an undetected congenital illness while in the womb and is enduring much physical pain, but also for a perfectly healthy newborn (still considered to be only a potential person albeit human) who may nonetheless be regarded by its parents and, by extension, society as an overwhelming psychological burden. While the grief of the mother due to abortion and after-birth abortion (which the author differentiates from both infanticide and euthanasia) is not denied, it is also stated that the grief due to NOT aborting even a healthy infant after birth but instead putting the infant up for adoption may be just as powerful. Personally, I question this, and think the pure logic of the argument falters on this point. But logic and reason alone without some sense of morality can be cold and dangerous as I believe the author of this article inadvertently demonstrates.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Feb 23, '14, 8:28 pm
Petaro Petaro is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2013
Posts: 1,477
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? [Article from Journal of Medical Ethics]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GEddie View Post
In what way is this a surprise?

Once abortion on demand became acceptable up to birth, this was inevitable.

Purgatory, here we come.

ICXC NIKA.
Purgatory? We wish!!!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Feb 23, '14, 8:49 pm
JimG JimG is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 22,435
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? [Article from Journal of Medical Ethics]

This is the same sort of proposal that has been put forth by Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University (a professor of Ethics!) for several years now.

He has proposed that newborns not be granted the legal protection of 'personhood' for six months after birth. This gives the parents a chance to change their minds if for any reason the newborn is not acceptable to them. Perhaps they were considering abortion, but decided against it. Perhaps there was an unknown birth defect. It doesn't really matter. It moves the acceptability of abortion forward to six months post-birth. (Of course, that could change, too.)

When I first heard of Singer's theories, I thought they were too abhorrent to be taken seriously. But he is quite serious. And now these ideas are filtering down to the medical community.

Some day the age limit for "abortion" could be, say, age 12. Sounds fanciful, but if one has no legal protection before birth, soon we will have no legal protection post-birth either.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Feb 23, '14, 8:59 pm
Joie de Vivre Joie de Vivre is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2014
Posts: 1,540
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? [Article from Journal of Medical Ethics]

Quote:
Originally Posted by markomalley View Post
Was made aware of this article published back in 2012 in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
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.
Take a few minutes and read the whole thing.

Your thoughts?

(Oh, btw, my thoughts: may God have mercy on us)
Given the secular axioms this article starts from it is entirely logical to legalize after-birth abortions, see the Romans, Greeks and many other pagan places. That doesn't make it any less appalling from a moral standpoint.

I think that perhaps this is a successful troll that was too successful.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Feb 23, '14, 9:02 pm
RPRPsych's Avatar
RPRPsych RPRPsych is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 3,517
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? [Article from Journal of Medical Ethics]

Quote:
Originally Posted by markomalley View Post
Was made aware of this article published back in 2012 in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
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.
Take a few minutes and read the whole thing.

Your thoughts?

(Oh, btw, my thoughts: may God have mercy on us)
This is what passes for medical ethics nowadays?

Sometimes my profession really, really makes me violently sick.



Lord have mercy on us all.

(ETA: In fairness to the BMJ, they did print a good response from a Catholic theologian:
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201...0411/suppl/DC3)
__________________

"The LORD is my light and my salvation;
whom should I fear?" - Psalm 27: 1

Love, war and the four last things? King For A Day is now complete!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old Feb 23, '14, 11:52 pm
PaulfromIowa PaulfromIowa is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2012
Posts: 2,598
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? [Article from Journal of Medical Ethics]

http://jme.bmj.com/content/suppl/201...3/Carmosy.docx
"Concern for Our Vulnerable Prenatal and Neonatal Children: A Brief Reply to Giubilini and Minerva" by Professor Charles C. Camosy of Fordham University
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Feb 24, '14, 11:30 am
JimG JimG is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 22,435
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? [Article from Journal of Medical Ethics]

Peter Singer has written this:
“The liberal search for a morally crucial dividing line between the newborn baby and the fetus has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with a right to life from those who lack such a right” (Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 142).
(Quoted by Trent Horn here.)

Consequently Prof. Singer has argued that infanticide, or post-birth abortion, is morally acceptable whenever abortion would have been acceptable. According to pro-abortion advocates, abortion is acceptable for any reason or no reason. It is at the sole discretion of the mother.

As a result, birth may now be no protection at all against arbitrary killing. If a new human being cannot be protected simply by reason of being a new individual of the human species at conception, there is no guarantee of a right to life at any point thereafter.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Moral Theology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8296Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Paula Hurworth
5061CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4348Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: Marla Frances
4033OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: 3DOCTORS
3849SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3600Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3257Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3210Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3181Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3063For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: ineeda



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 4:46 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.