fatbrit

Why?

It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
A human fetus/new-born baby is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus/new-born baby.

Which part of the syllogism do you disagree with?

dollface

Seriously?

fatbrit

Yes! I'm afraid sh!t doesn't explain your stance to me. I'd like to understand it.

dollface

My stance is pretty straight forward really - pro-choice in terms of LEGAL abortion and the rest, in terms of the thread title, is a load of sh1t.

fatbrit

So you defer your ideas of morality to the state obviating the necessity to otherwise consider them? I suppose it's a safe track to take in a modern democracy.

dollface

I have ZERO intention of getting into a debate with you. My opinion, is just that, MY opinion - you, are at liberty (thankfully!) to choose the path that sits best with you.

fatbrit

I'm conflicted on the whole issue. I'm open to suggestions.

Sally Redux

It's certainly not straightforward. Abortion at 40 weeks is legal in some situations (at least in the UK, not familiar with the law here). The difference between that and infanticide becomes a technicality. Discussion of the point at which we deem someone to have become human is worthy of debate.

fatbrit

Striking P2 is the usual pro-choice argument. However, the gradual nature of growth makes it impossible to define adequately a time when life becomes human.

I presume the authors of the paper followed Singer and attacked P1.

dollface

Really? what circumstances? ( or are you quoting The Guardian? )usually no more than 24 weeks.

Sally Redux

I don't know what that means.
Handicap, but I believe doctors have leeway in other circumstances.

dollface

But surely with all the 3D scans etc you would know in advance of 40 weeks, some women would have given birth naturally by that time - I had.

fatbrit

The syllogism I gave in #91 contains two premises (commonly denoted P1 and P2) and a conclusion. Arguments about the time human life begins attack P2 to make it the conclusion invalid. Singer (a contemporary philosopher) caused great controversy by attacking P1 instead. The paper about infanticide (I haven't read it yet) presumably follows Singer down this path.

Sally Redux

It is my understanding that very late abortions are permitted in some cases, however it will need someone with more concrete knowledge to confirm.

Sally Redux

Ah right I understand. Thanks.