Posted on 02/29/2012 12:04:23 PM PST by Mount Athos
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.
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”. [...]
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”.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
He is right. In fact, abortion IS KILLING BABIES and should be banned in deference to the unborn babies Constitutional right to life.
But nooooooooo, another commies pushing the envelope of death. You could see this coming in 1974. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.
And yes, he is exactly right that killing post-born babies is no different than killing pre-born babies. The only difference is that baby killers can’t look on a fully developed baby and pretend it is not a human being, in the way they can look at a pregnant mothers stomach and pretend there is no human being within it.
Mark my words, technology will someday end accidental pregnancy and the day thereafter, the 50 million abortions of the 20th & 21st Centuries will be seen for the holocaust that it is.
My fear has been that this would eventually become the norm.
I could see some “brilliant scientific mind” come to the conclusion that “abortion” would be okay up to age 5 and after age 60.
It wouldn’t shock me at all.
Some European countries have already experimented with Government sponsered “suicide” of the elderly.
Sorry, if you’re helping out the death, It’s not “abotion” or “suicide”, that now makes it murder.
Still, medical ethicists are, for the most part, morally irrelevant and it's OK to kill one of them if he bothers you at the hospital with that stuff.
In the UK, they have abandoned Jesus, wrapped themselves up with atheism, and in return were flooded with Islamic monsters who will kill all atheists as soon as they near 50 percent of the voting population.
Some might call that “ironic”.
Um... isn't that kind of OUR point? Abortion = killing babies?
A baby person is a person!
As Santorum said, that's about 10% of all the deaths in the country every year.
Euthanasia is lawful there. They don't prosecute folks for committing involuntary euthanasia provided you are a doctor.
They claim a low murder rate though.
The term "lebensunwertes leben" immediately springs to mind.
Kind of like welfare recipients??
Killing “experts” no different from any other type of pest control, Citizens say.
These authors (I am using the term loosely) and any other like minded anti-ethicists should be charged and convicted of being “accessaries to murder,” in any future cases where a developing human being is killed. This means up through the teenage years, based upon their own idiotic definition.
Thanks for the info. I had heard that Nederlands had backed off but apparently not. I stand corrected; saddened by the news, but corrected.
After having posted this accessary to murder indictment of those idiots, I realized that it would be better if they were charged and convicted in a State that allows capitol punishment.
This is the Casey Anthony Endowed Chair in Medical Ethics, I take it?
Completely intellectually consistent. I see no fundamental difference between terminating a gestating baby and terminating a born baby.
I’ve read few arguments that so clearly demonstrate how intellectually and morally vapid the pro-abortion position actually is. We should be dropping leaflets from C-130s trumpeting this stuff.
SnakeDoc
Well, this was bound to come.
Pro-lifers have been pointing out that killing an unborn child is no different from killing a baby.
Now these guys are pointing out that killing a baby is no different from killing an unborn child.
They deny the first, but defend the second.
They also say that it’s too expensive for the state to bring up defective children. Well, and who asked the state to do that in the first place? The same guys that want to kill them.
Liberal: “I’m a warm, affectionate, caring sort of guy, so I believe there should be free medical care for everyone. Er. Except the handicapped, the unwanted, the sick, the old, and the inferior (not speaking racially, of course).”
Maybe along with US Post Office style “Wanted” posters.
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.