Newsflash - people can't read and espouse horrible violence.

[Zinegata]

Funny, because that is exactly how they are explaining themselves.

Ah, yes. So that's why they're publishing samples of the supposed "death threats" FROM THE INTERNET? Come on Thanas, you know that was a silly overreaction.

You want to know why they did that? Because the word Infanticide has a lot of negative historical and cultural connotations that poison the well. They are also comparing that action with a late term abortion. It therefore makes sense to be a lexiconic splitter.

And how is that not semantic fudging? "Infanticide is horrible so let's make it a variation of abortion!". Heck, all you did was to attempt to redefine "semantic fudging" with "lexiconic splitter" because the latter has less negative implications, but at the end of the day we're ultimately talking about the same thing.

Again, I'd say they should have just attacked the core and said it straight out: "Personhood does not start at birth".

We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons.

They explicitly define what a person is. What they DO avoid, is saying when a human being becomes a person, because we dont fucking know yet.

And how is this incompatible with what I said: They avoid the CORE of the issue, "Where does life/personhood begin?". I never argued about whether or not they defined "personhood". I explicitly pointed to the core issue, which they admit they didn't tackle.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ok, reversing the question: why you need a bioethicist for that? What do they have more than an expert in the field the rule is written for?
I thought ethics is as close as personal opinion as anything can get, when you get outside of the most-traveled routes (no killing no stealing no rape...).

hehehe... hahahahaha...HAHAHAHAHAH!

You did not just say that did you? The point of bioethics is to do things like inform policy decisions, create rules of conduct that are agreeable to most patients/subjects, and to help settle large ethical dilemmas. A doctor has no philosophical training. An ethicist has no biological/medical training. A bioethicist is required to be a fully trained ethicist, in addition, they are required to be trained in medical science. Not to the degree of a physician, but to a sufficient degree to understand the medical literature. So no. Physicians do not have the expertise. Moreover, physicians and researchers do not have a good track record of being non-fuckups. They need a god damn sanity check sometimes.

http://www.rbs2.com/humres.htm

There is a sample. See also: non-consensual circumcisions, non-consensual penectomy for intersex children (yes, you read that correctly), spraying guatemala with STDs, non-consensual pesticide and radiation tests, experimenting on mental patients and orphans without consent, lack of informed consent for the above when nominal consent is given. Do I need to go through a complete list, or is that sufficient?

Apparently, people do not know that some things are unethical on their own, and these are not rogue events. Many of these were done on large scales by actual institutions. Without bioethicists thinking about these questions for example, it would still be standard practice to remove the penis of intersex infants without the mother's knowledge, inform said mother that the child is female, and damn the neurodevelopmental consequences for the kid.

So fuck you.

And how is that not semantic fudging? "Infanticide is horrible so let's make it a variation of abortion!". Heck, all you did was to attempt to redefine "semantic fudging" with "lexiconic splitter" because the latter has less negative implications, but at the end of the day we're ultimately talking about the same thing.

We (by which I mean everyone) does it all the time. We use a neutral term when we could use an inflammatory one precisely when we are NOT trying to troll. The english language HAS more than one word for things you know. We have an open vocabulary, and sometimes we want to describe something and either make it clear that what we are describing is under a certain context, or want to avoid someone going off in an ignorant tard-rage like people in this thread have done by using words that do not invoke by their mere utterance horrific scenes of butchery.

For example, they are talking about a medical intervention shortly after birth to kill a newborn that has a decision making process and probable ethics committee approval going into it were it to be implemented. This is different from exposing an infant on a rock, or throwing it into a dumpster on prom-night. In the same way that I could describe any killing of a person with the word Murder, but we have other words for it. Manslaughter, Self-Defense, Execution, Extra-Judicial Killing, Crime Of Passion. Each of which is used in different contexts and means different things. Manslaughter is typically a result of an accident while otherwise intending harm (punching someone in the face, said person hits their head on a sharp corner and cracks their skull), Execution has two meanings. It can either be a gangland execution, or it can be legally sanctioned etc. If I want to talk about ethical issues surrounding any of these, I will use that term, rather than use a term with universally negative connotations--murder.

Post-Birth-Abortion is actually a standard term in the biomedical ethics literature for this exact reason. In much the same way as Forced Copulation is in ethology. I could use the term Duck-Rape, but it is not sterile enough for formal discourse. So, if you are going to piss and moan about this, you must also piss and moan about every alternative word anyone ever uses to lessen the emotional impact of a statement or provide particular context to said statement.

Words are used to communicate more than their literal meaning. This is the case, it has always been the case, and it is so for a good reason. Now shut your ignorant trap before you further humiliate yourself.

And how is this incompatible with what I said: They avoid the CORE of the issue, "Where does life/personhood begin?".

And if you know how to read: They cannot answer the question. It is not a philosophical question, but an empirical one. We simply do not have the information to make the call.