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.
These are "ethicists" arguing that calling an act B instead of A changes it ethically. To call that position suspect is to be far too charitable.
Dr. Mengele Approves!
And the abortion people keep pushing the “envelope.” Next step is that a woman has the right to choose to abort the fetus if it is less than 18 years after the fetus exits the birth womb as a “post-partum” procedure.
That is already here. "Safe Haven" laws - the legal opportunity for a mother to abandon a baby - exist because of the epidemic of women murdering their born babies. It all springs from the idea that women own the children.
Depends on the Greeks. They may be fans of Plato and fancy themselves philosopher kings, or Spartans since they supposedly practiced infanticide as well.
I’ll accept their reasoning once they walk the walk instead of talking the talk. They should be willing to cease their own lives if they really feel this way.
Otherwise, it’s just another bunch of kill freaks finding a way to get their jollies off by killing kids.
Sometimes, like this particular time, people absolutely disgust me.
Good thing that conservatives and Christianity is not genetic.
People are freaking about this, but this really seems like a classic “demonstrating absurdity by being absurd” move.
We must not break any littering laws in the process, though, and all carcasses must be either eaten or disposed of in a responsible manner so as not to cause the spread of disease.
This is good for the planet, too, so it is our moral responsibility to kill at least one such ethicist or hire someone to kill one for us ASAP, until they are extinct.
As a super-ethicist, no one is allowed to dispute any ethical statement I make, not even the labor unions or Occupy and its various derivatives.
You said exactly what I was thinking.
This is how it starts.
The door to this was opened a long time ago. This is sick, evil, barbaric.
But this is Roe v. Wade(and prior pro-death “legalizations” i.e. euthanasia) taken to it’s logical conclusion. Anybody who didn’t see this coming is in for a rude awakening.
All the more reason I will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, ever, whether D or R.
No Romney, no way!! FUBO!
There are over seven billion lesser people inhabiting their earth, and they have put up with us long enough.
When you consider human life less valuable than an a so called endangered species, what do you expect?
Today the “ethicists” argue for post-birth abortion, tomorrow they will argue to post-lived-a-good-life abort grandma who needs a new hip, and either cremate her to heat the swimming pool or make Soylent Green biscuits our of her.
Yet another made up profession for useless liberal arts grads to occupy.
We can now declare Godwin’s Law null and void.
Dr. Mengele I presume.
This is EXACTLY the kind of thinking used by the nazis.
Not surprised whatsoever this is what things have come to.
I had a dog once that ate it’s puppies.I euthanised her.
A human being who murders an infant deserves no less.
That person is not a human he/she is a monster.
This is a classic example of a false-premise argument. If one accepts that abortion of a fetus is allowable then it logically follows that "after-birth abortions" are as well. If one accepts that argument then murder should be ethical and legal at any age, and I would recommend that the procedure first be carried out on the Australian "ethicists."
As these âethicistsâ are paid by universities it would be fair to say that the state provides for their care. Further it could be argued that this places an unbearable burden on society as a whole as these individuals are nothing but a drain to the very society that they advocate killing, at least in part. Logically it makes more sense to practice abortions on the “ethicists” than on innocent children.
Why not allow mothers to kill their children at any age? After all, it is a woman's right to choose whether her child lives.
I have read our PINO’s words about supporting the murder of babies who survive abortion, but do you have any link to a video of him saying the words? I need that for my archive when people refuse to believe me when I tell them about horrible things their beloved Barry has said.
Ethicists in Australia can be killed any time within 100 years of their birth because they are non-persons.
I can’t even make a coherent comment on this. I am just so saddened and disgusted that I have no words for these self-name experts who think they are gods.