Skip to comments.Ethicists call for killing of newborns to be made legal
Posted on 02/29/2012 11:57:06 AM PST by NYer
Professors from Milan and Oxford argue that 'foetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons'
Professors from Milan and Oxford argue that 'foetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons' (PA photo)
A leading British medical journal has published an article calling for the introduction of infanticide for social and medical reasons.
The article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, entitled After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? states in its abstract: After-birth abortion (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
The article, written by Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva of Melbourne University, argues that foetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons and consequently a law which permits abortion for certain reasons should permit infanticide on the same grounds.
The article follows alleged instances of sex-selective abortions throughout Britain raising alarm concerning the application of the 1967 Abortion Act.
Lord Alton, co-chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group, said that infanticide was the chilling and unassailable logical step for a society that permits killing a baby one day before birth.
He said: That the Journal of Medical Ethics should give space to such a proposition illustrates not a slippery slope, but the quagmire into which medical ethics and our wider society have been sucked.
Personal choice has eclipsed the sacredness, or otherness, of life itself. It is profoundly disturbing, indeed shocking, to see the way in which opinion-formers within the medical profession have ditched the traditional belief of the healer to uphold the sanctity of human life for this impoverished and inhumane defence of child destruction.
It has been said that a country which kills its own children has no future. Thats true. And a country which accepts infanticide or the killing of a little girl or a little boy because of their gender, the killing of a baby because of a disability, or the killing of a child because it is inconvenient, the wrong shape, or the wrong colour, also forfeits its right to call itself civilised.
But Julian Savulescu, the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, has defended the publication of the paper on the British Medical Journal website. He said: “What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”
He continued: “As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend its publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.
“The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.
“Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”
Kenneth Boyd, associate editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, said that the publication of the paper did not reflect his personal view and that the article had gone through the process of academic peer review.
Mr Boyd said: I think what the authors are addressing is a minority problem following birth, where there would have been grounds for a termination and many people would feel that that circumstance is unfortunate but no reason for infanticide. But our feeling was that its better for these views to be discussed.
The authors, when discussing children with Downs Syndrome, state: 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. On these grounds the fact that a foetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore… when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissable.
The authors also support infanticide for non-medical reasons but do not state at which point in a babys development infanticide would no longer be permissable because it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.
I understand your point and reference to the many small children Johnathen Swift observed and discussed with a satirical “flavor.” The Editor and lord Alton also see through it and recognize the depths to which society is regressing if in fact the logical conclusions were accepted.
However, the authors themselves don’t appear to be of the same opinion. That is unconsionable in word or deed if they believe any part of that tripe. I will never again use the phrase “think of it as ‘post-natal-obortion’,” as a point for capitol punishment. I will be stopped by a rememberence of this article by so called “medical ehticist’s.”
If one is murder, so is the other.
Conversely, if either is not murder, then neither is the other.
Personally, I favor the first proposition.
There have been other articles or at least one, lately, of “ethicists” drawing the same conclusion. Maybe one of the same ones in this article. No, they are dead serious. They are not standing against abortion at all.
If I am wrong, I will be glad.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
What a strange world where "ethicists" are the most evil of all people because they promote evil in the guise of morals.
What do you know - here’s another one!
Couldn't see that one coming, could we?
The sky is the limit with declaring human beings as having “lives not worthy of living”. If the unborn can be killed using these (spit) “ethics”, than anyone can be killed using the exact same logic.
And will be.
Count on it.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." "No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." "No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
"We the People of the United States, in Order to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
When you read that word it almost a dead certainly today that you're about to read about men with absolutely no ethics.
They will not stop until they ARE stopped by external force.
In a sane world rabid skunks are shot on sight. In a sane society an insane psychopath intent on murdering infants should be shot on sight. It should be open season on those who advocate the murder of any child.
Peter Singer should be found nailed to his bed with a wooden stake through his chest.
Your comments are excellent. I agree 100%.
>> Ethicists call for killing of newborns to be made legal
Given the natural desire for equitable justice, it might be premature to call for the legalization of killing those that call for the killing of newborns not that I have an opinion on this.
His argument that you can kill a baby because it’s not fully human definitely applies to himself. He is anything but human. He is a heartless, evil, sub human monster. By his own argument, if there was ever anyone who should be after birth aborted, it is he, himself.
My feeling is that the killing of “ethicists” should be made legal. They simply do not have the same high moral standing as even a serial killer.
In other words, they are lower than a worm’s belly and should be cut up for fish bait so that they can serve a useful purpose in this world.
In that at 48 I warned that the incrementalism would lead to the blatant death cultism that is now becoming public policy. I either got no response, or "no it isn't," even by the alleged faithful, or "go see a doctor."
Over the years I pretty much got the first response -- nothingness -- from the members of the ping list. (I understand your frustration with AIP, but politics is your bag, and trying to keep portions of our once decent culture alive is mine.) Hence I lost faith in FR being a force for conservatives actually giving a shit. That's why you don't see me much around here anymore. I stick to my blog where I can write a post on this major subject of our decadent and evermore despotic age without being harassed for posting "vanities."