Skip to comments.After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
Posted on 03/01/2012 10:15:12 AM PST by robowombat
J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411 Law, ethics and medicine Paper After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? Alberto Giubilini1,2, Francesca Minerva3,4 + Author Affiliations
1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy 2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 4Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; email@example.com Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.
Received 25 November 2011 Revised 26 January 2012 Accepted 27 January 2012 Published Online First 23 February 2012 Abstract Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue 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 jme.bmj.com ...
Pure unadulterated evil.
Either we are living in the last days, or God owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.
I vote “last days.”
“why should the baby live”
And this is what post-Christian, post-modern thought has devolved into. Welcome to the slime under the bottom of the barrel.
This really is “why should anyone live” if others think there’s no benefit to them or society at large.
And it’s what we’ve been warning for over a hundred years. Degrading the value of life across the entire spectrum.
The question is, “Why should the baby DIE?”
And stupid Freepers think Rick Stantorum has said too much about morality. Rick has not said enough.
And people laughed at the idea of a slippery slope for the tolerance of abortion and perversion.
Well, now we’re on slide and nowhere near the bottom... and folks are probably wondering “What am I doing in this hand basket? And why is it getting so hot?”
Or, as Kipling put it:
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”
Re: Pure unadulterated evil.
I am convinced there will be an accountability for your actions in this life so I would much rather be in my shoes than in obamas and any other abortionists shoes when the time comes.
Indeed - those who promote evil need to be brought forth to defend the despicable things they support.
This sort of “ethical reasoning” is the causistry of demons, and is, in fact, the logical outcome of any line of argument that at some point does not recognize that abortion is homicide (and thus abortion for convenience or, indeed, for any reason other than self-defense is murder — this is not the place to argue over whether self-defense includes only the life of the mother or extends to grievous harm to the mother or even a rape-and-incest exception).
All argumentation on behalf of abortion requires effacing the bright line between potential person and actual person created by recognizing an ununited human sperm cell and human egg cell as a potential person, and their union as a person. Once that demonic step has been taken, the conclusions of the authors cited follow without the further introduction of evil notions: as they correctly note that other separations of potential and actual make no sense.