Skip to comments.Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions‘ as Newborns ’Are Not Persons’
Posted on 02/27/2012 5:18:33 PM PST by Lazlo in PA
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.
The two are quick to note that they prefer the term after-birth abortion as opposed to infanticide. Why? Because it [emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which abortions in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.
The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an acceptable life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Dr. Mengele I presume.
Is “ethicist” the new term for “Nazi”?
I don’t know if they are hoisting the pro-abortion group on their own petard or just being Aholes.
Just wait until some “ethicist” concludes that “progressives” aren’t persons...
These two are not ethicists, they’re blood thirsty animals.
Newborn future ethicists are not persons neither.
I guess the attacks accusing the GOP of wanting to violate women’s rights to kill their born baby is next.
Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are putting people at risk. I say we take them at their word and abort them.
This will be a plank in the Democratic party platform by 2016 if it’s not already.
They are just two wild and crazy guys trying to channel King Herod. Definitely too much sun in Australia. Good argument why tenure should never be supported directly or indirectly by the taxpayer.
What we really need are post-PhD abortions.
so if i understand this article....we could go to the land down under and perform a very, very late term abortion on these two idiots??
if this were to pass any good defense attorney would be able to get his client off of murder charges with the defense the scum was performing a very, very late term abortion.
it’s scary we’re even having this discussion.
It should not be forgotten how the current occupant of the WH supports the murder of abortion-surviving babies.
May those who would support that ghastly act burn forever in hell along with that murderer George Tiller.
They must be Utilitarians. Notice they agree that it is for “the good of the parents”. That is typical Utilitarian thinking. They need to read more of the Greeks. Even Kant would be better.
Scary.. and heartbreaking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.