tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post5448601625966794446..comments2024-03-28T05:47:54.177+00:00Comments on Philosophical Disquisitions: What the "After-Birth Abortion" Article Said (Part One)John Danaherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-44084074414225998982012-03-05T20:58:57.000+00:002012-03-05T20:58:57.000+00:00Hi John Danaher,
I am glad to see a blog discuss ...Hi John Danaher,<br /><br />I am glad to see a blog discuss this article. I admit that I have more than queasiness about Giubilini and Minerva's proposal but total outrage. However, I see no remote justification for threats of illegal vigilante violence against them. I could see the United Nations taking action against a modern government that would legalize elective infanticide, but I also abhor vigilante threats against philosophers proposing a philosophical notion.<br /><br />I appreciate the complexity of pinpointing philosophical notion of personhood and legal rights while examining the continuum of human development from zygote formation to adulthood. For example, in most of the United States, citizens can make their own decisions without parental consent at the age of eighteen unless they seek emancipation as early as the age of sixteen. All of this is civil law that appears discretionary. (By the way, I never took a course in the philosophy of law, so please excuse my layman's language.) Such laws are evidently needed but discretionary nonetheless.<br /><br />I propose that self-evidence indicates that elective infanticide / after-birth abortion is wrong. I see problems with my proposal because polytheistic ancient Greece and Rome supported elective infant exposure, so I cannot appeal to this as a self-evident truth recognized by every culture throughout history. I also cannot think of how to propose this to proponents of moral error theory.<br /><br />I also understand that proponents of a literal interpretation of the history in the Bible from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings (D history) cannot appeal to universal wrongness of all situations of elective infanticide. But fortunately not all ancient and modern Christians insist upon a literal interpretation of all the human slaughter in D history.<br /><br />I also agree with you that Giubilini and Minerva make no suggestion that there logic should be used place limits of fetal abortion. However, I suppose that their logic could easily support that human fetuses and newborns should have the same civil rights, regardless of where the chips fall.<br /><br />Additionally, they never proposed an age of personhood in the continuum of human development. Are two-day-old infants eligible for after-birth abortion? Three-day-old? Four-day-old? Etcetera? <br /><br />I never say gut feelings is our most important criteria for decision making. But if anybody is unsure about this, and your gut feels queasy about accepting Giubilini and Minerva's proposal, then in this case, go with your gut.<br /><br />I hope to develop a better justification for rejecting the legalization of infanticide, but I need more time and more dialogue.James Goetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02412501436355228925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-54251961142073376172012-03-05T11:16:11.788+00:002012-03-05T11:16:11.788+00:00I am glad you are reviewiing the article. I'd ...I am glad you are reviewiing the article. I'd appreciate your thoughts on what I wrote about it.<br /><br /><a href="http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2012/03/after-birth-abortion-and-solomon.html" rel="nofollow">http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2012/03/after-birth-abortion-and-solomon.html</a>Larry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.com