Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34
  1. #1 Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say 
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,629
    Parents 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’.
    Related Articles


    “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”.
    Read More>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...perts-say.html

    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.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    7,078
    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.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache View Post
    i see the fingerprints of eugenics all over this. they haven't changed in 100 years...
    This is the progression of liberalism, they won't stop with abortion and infanticide won't satisfy them.
    It has been in the plan of progressives since the beginning.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    SEAduced SuperMod Hawkgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    4,094
    The depravity is strong here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,166
    Ya and it wont be cool eugenics like Spaceseed (Kahn, star trek) but the bad kind like the Nazi's
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,497
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member MrsSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,393
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    The mother is no longer having her body involuntarily occupied by the baby.
    Do you realize how incredibly DUmb this statement sounds?
    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?"
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    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:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    The argument is flawed. I wonder if it was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek jab from anti-abortion advocates. .
    Exactly. Self impressed pseudo intellectual British types proving that the Earth really is flat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •