Boinkie's Blog

Universalis

Monday, May 20, 2013

welcome to the culture of death

BMJ

The arguments

  • Philosophy, critical thinking and ‘after-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’

    • Michael Tooley
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:266-272 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100861
    Editor's ChoiceFREE

  • Infanticide and moral consistency

    • Jeff McMahan
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:273-280 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100988

  • Capacity, harm and experience in the life of persons as equals

    • John Finnis
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:281-283 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-101198

  • Paper: The common premise for uncommon conclusions

    • C A J Coady
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:284-288 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-101163

  • Infanticide, moral status and moral reasons: the importance of context

    • Leslie Francis,
    • Anita Silvers
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:289-292 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100767

  • Paper: The Groningen Protocol for newborn euthanasia; which way did the slippery slope tilt?

    • A A Eduard Verhagen
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:293-295 doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101402

  • Concern for our vulnerable prenatal and neonatal children: a brief reply to Giubilini and Minerva

    • Charles Camosy
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:296-298 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100617

  • Infanticide and madness

    • Robert P George
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:299-301 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-101203

  • Is the pro-choice position for infanticide ‘madness’?

    • Charles Camosy
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:301-302 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100814

  • Response to: Is the pro-choice position for infanticide ‘madness’?

    • Robert P George
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:302 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-101202

Public policies

  • In defence of academic freedom: bioethics journals under siege

    • Udo Schüklenk
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:303-306 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100801

  • Paper: Life in the cloud and freedom of speech

    • John Harris
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:307-311 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100862

  • Should policy ethics come in two colours: green or white?

    • Malcolm Oswald
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:312-315 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-101191

  • The fragility of freedom of speech

    • Nicholas Shackel
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:316 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100628

  • Paper: The Italian reaction to the Giubilini and Minerva paper

    • Maurizio Mori
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:317-322 doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101403

Responses

    Mini-symposium on after-birth abortion

    • Introduction

      • Michael J Selgelid,
      • Justin Oakley
      J Med Ethics 2013;39:323 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-101164a

    • Public distress as a moral consideration in after-birth abortion

      • Paul Biegler
      J Med Ethics 2013;39:323 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-101164b

    • Some comments on the paper ‘After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’

      • Helga Kuhse
      J Med Ethics 2013;39:323-324 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-101164c

    • Moral uncertainty and the moral status of early human life

      • Michael J Selgelid
      J Med Ethics 2013;39:324 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-101164d

    • ‘After-birth abortion’ and arguments from potential

      • Justin Oakley
      J Med Ethics 2013;39:324-325 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-101164e

    • The performativity of personhood

      • Catherine Mills
      J Med Ethics 2013;39:325 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-101164f

  • Paper: The moral significance of being born

    • Neil Levy
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:326-329 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100734

  • Yes, the baby should live: a pro-choice response to Giubilini and Minerva

    • Bertha Alvarez Manninen
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:330-335 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100656

  • Paper: Infanticide: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva

    • Jacqueline A Laing
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:336-340 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100664
    Open Access

  • Potentials and burdens: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva

    • Francis J Beckwith
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:341-344 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100844

  • The moral status of babies

    • Andrew McGee
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:345-348 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100629

  • Paper: Abortion, infanticide and moral context

    • Lindsey Porter
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:350-352 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100661

  • Paper: Of course the baby should live: against ‘after-birth abortion’

    • Regina A Rini
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:353-356 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100640

Electronic pages: Responses

  • Personhood, harm and interest: a reply to Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva

    • Matthew Beard,
    • Sandra Lynch
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:e1-e4 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100692

  • After-birth abortion: the intuition argument

    • Zohar Lederman
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:e5 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100688

  • Why should the baby live? Human right to life and the precautionary principle

    1. Benedetto Rocchi
    1. Correspondence to Dr Benedetto Rocchi, Department of Economics and Management, Vua delle Pandette, 32, 50127 Florence, Italy; benedetto.rocchi@unifi.it
    • Received 16 April 2012
    • Revised 29 December 2012
    • Accepted 31 January 2013

    Abstract

    This paper discusses the issue of ‘post-birth abortion’ from an applied perspective. Three hypothetical situations where a newborn considered as a ‘potential person’ is at risk of being killed are proposed to highlight the potential controversial outcomes of post-birth abortion. The internal consistency of the argument proposed by Giubilini and Minerva to morally justify newborn killing is contested as well. Finally, an alternative moral strategy based on the precautionary principle and excluding any distinction between potential and actual persons is proposed as rational.

    Paper: Why should the baby live? Human right to life and the precautionary principle

    • Benedetto Rocchi
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:e6-e10 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100735
  • The basic human experience of the atrocities in the first half of the 20th century has significantly strengthened the recognition of human dignity and human rights for all born people at the political level. Therefore, the Charter of the United Nations in 1945 and its Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, Article 1 affirms: ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’. This article provides an ethical justification of why we in this political consensus should not waver, and why we should grant the right to life to all born human infants. Moreover, there is an ethical justification to granting the right to life even to unborn human beings, who already bear a human face.

    Paper: After-birth and before-birth personhood: why the baby should live

    • Nikolaus Johannes Knoepffler,
    • Martin J O'Malley
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:e11-e14 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-101031
  • Two notable limitations exist on the use of personhood arguments in establishing moral status. Firstly, although the attribution of personhood may give us sufficient reason to grant something moral status, it is not a necessary condition. Secondly, even if a person is that which has the ‘highest’ moral status, this does not mean that any interests of a person are justifiable grounds to kill something that has a ‘lower’ moral status. Additional justification is needed to overcome a basic wrongness associated with killing something possessing moral status. There are clear arguments already available in this regard in the case of a foetus that are not available in the case of a newborn infant. Hence, there is scope to consistently hold that abortion may be permissible but that after-birth abortion may not be permissible.

    Limitations on personhood arguments for abortion and ‘after-birth abortion’

    • Anthony Wrigley
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:e15-e18 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100958

  • Killing fetuses and killing newborns

    • Ezio Di Nucci
    J Med Ethics 2013;39:e19-e20 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100621
    • [Abstract]
    • [Full text]
    • [PDF]
    • [Request permissions]

      Killing fetuses and killing newborns

      1. Ezio Di Nucci
      1. Correspondence to Dr Ezio Di Nucci, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Institut für Philosophie, Essen 45117, Germany; ezio.dinucci@uni-due.de
      • Received 4 March 2012
      • Revised 28 May 2012
      • Accepted 4 February 2013

      Abstract

      The argument for the moral permissibility of killing newborns is a challenge to liberal positions on abortion because it can be considered a reductio of their defence of abortion. Here I defend the liberal stance on abortion by arguing that the argument for the moral permissibility of killing newborns on ground of the social, psychological and economic burden on the parents recently put forward by Giubilini and Minerva is not valid; this is because they fail to show that newborns cannot be harmed and because there are morally relevant differences between fetuses and newborns.

posted by boinky at 8:32 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Sex selection

interview at Freakonomics

Amazon link

Chinese newspaper interview

posted by boinky at 7:22 AM | 0 comments links to this post

septic abortion in India after sex selection

From the Times of India:

HYDERABAD: When India was busy celebrating International Women's Day, a group of women activists were protesting the death of a woman who was forced by her family to undergo an abortion to get rid of her five-month-old female fetus, which eventually led to her death. The activists, armed with a fact finding report, revealed the gory details of how 28-year-old M Vijayalakshmi died after a botched-up abortion which was carried out in a private nursing home in Nalgonda.
Vijayalakshmi's death has once again put the spotlight on thriving sex selective abortions and the grim girl child sex ratio in the state, they said. Nalgonda in fact has the third lowest girl child sex ratio in AP with 921 girls per 1,000 boys, with high preferences for boys.



posted by boinky at 7:14 AM | 0 comments links to this post

boston cardinal is non pc

I just read a book about sex selection.
It seems that the US, under the elite "country club" republicans and later the feminist democrats, were behind the push for birth control and abortion in India and China, and that the ultimate result was the acceptance of sex selection to get the "right" baby, especially among the upper middle classes.

So in the "death" from medical malpractice, 

CNN article with all the superficial pro death talking points says:

  • Savita Halappanavar died in Ireland after being denied an abortion
I have written before about this, including a differential diagnosis.

But two things always puzzled me:

One, she had "severe back pain".

two: she developed premature ruptured membranes at 17 weeks, and later got infected.

Now, the ultrasound for sex selection is usually done at 16 weeks, when the penis can be identified.

and the "first thing" this lady and her husband did, when she was treated for "severe back pain" was not to ask if their much wanted baby could live, but demand the docs perform an abortion.

If the PROM was spontaneous, it is painless.

If PROM occurs at 17 weeks, the treatment is watchful waiting, since sometimes the membranes will reseal, and at other times the fetus will pass spontaneously. Removing the fetus at that time alas can result in fetal parts perforating the uterus or having fetal parts left behind. (I've seen both things happen).

Just wondering...

posted by boinky at 6:52 AM | 0 comments links to this post

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Baby Boomer death cult

link

in a land where everyone is productive workers, a man who has rejected tradition to do his own thing ends up flat on the ground for hours because no one is there to help him.

So when he decides to end it all, his children applaud his "decision".

But his decision is the result of a lifetime of rejecting family,children etc. and being at the forefront of modern culture:


His heroes were Malthus and Paul Ehrlich; his villain was the oppressive and obsessive Catholic Church (even though he was a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences). His solutions were anything which would defuse the population bomb: homosexuality, contraception, sterilisation, abortion, taxing children. ‘Given the urgency of the problem, political authorities should, with the support of as many moral authorities as possible, take active positions in favor of limiting births’, he wrote.
De Duve’s philosophy was that we will all perish unless we take responsibility for directing our own evolution. He even thought that hatcheries of cloned infants in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World were a better idea than the randomness of natural procreation. ‘Substituting reasoned choice for such a blind game could be seen as desirable’, he wrote. Man’s inability to fix the lottery of life seems to have driven him to a deep pessimism.
Like a snowball of angst, de Duve rolled through the last years of his life, adding more and more existential threats to the continued existence of humanity until he became a miserabilist snowman with a scarf emblazoned ‘Après nous le Déluge’.

and the article notes the link between this modern thinking and the surge of suicides in the baby boomer population...

posted by boinky at 10:11 AM | 0 comments links to this post