#1 Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say03-02-2012, 03:46 AMParents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent
1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
“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.”
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.
The authors therefore concluded 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”.
They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.
Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.
“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.
They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.
Society demands the existence of hell.The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
03-02-2012, 04:23 AM
i see the fingerprints of eugenics all over this. they haven't changed in 100 years...Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
03-02-2012, 01:01 PMThe difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
03-02-2012, 06:14 PM
The depravity is strong here.
03-02-2012, 06:17 PM
Ya and it wont be cool eugenics like Spaceseed (Kahn, star trek) but the bad kind like the Nazi's
03-03-2012, 01:20 AM
What get's me is that most liberals are against the death penalty. Well, isn't that post birth abortion?The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
03-03-2012, 11:18 AM
Strangely enough, every person on this panel managed to survive infancy despite severe mental issues.-
In actual dollars, President Obamaís $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. Itís no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.
Under Obamaís own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually.
03-03-2012, 04:23 PM
The argument is flawed. I wonder if it was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek jab from anti-abortion advocates.
Let's consider this. The argument supposes that abortion is acceptable because a fetus does not meet the criteria of Personhood which grant it the same human rights as everyone else. The qualities that distinguish a Person from any other living creature are generally considered the ability to communicate, a sense of self, consciousness, self-motivation, and the ability to reason. Because a newborn baby also does not meet these criteria, they conclude that it is just as morally acceptable to kill a newborn as it is to abort a fetus.
However, that misinterprets that argument for abortion. Even if we can agree that a fetus is not a Person in the full moral sense of the word, that doesn't mean that we have free reign to kill them for any reason. For example, it would be unethical to kill a dog purely for the sake of killing it, even though the dog isn't a person, we consider the dog to have some right to life. Of course, when a non-person animal's right to life conflicts with the right to life of a full-fledged Person, we always side with the person. The argument for abortion only works because there is an immediate conflict between the rights of the Fetus and the rights of the Mother. If we cannot consider the fetus a Person, we may still be able to consider it a pre-Person, or potential-Person, which certainly has some moral value. However, in the case of a conflict of rights between a pre-Person and a Person, it is the rights of a Person which supercede.
After a baby is born, there is no longer a conflict of rights. The mother is no longer having her body involuntarily occupied by the baby. At that point, we may still consider the newborn baby to not entirely posses the full qualities of personhood, but that status as a not-entirely-full-Person doesn't grant Persons the right to kill them at will.Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
03-03-2012, 10:26 PMThe mother is no longer having her body involuntarily occupied by the baby.
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
Do you think the mother woke up one morning and said; "OMG, I have an unanticipated, completely unexplainable life form growing inside me!!! How in blue blazes did that happen?"
C. S. Lewis
Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|