After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Journal of Medical Ethics (yes, believe it or not) ^ | February 23, 2012 | Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva

[SoFloFreeper]

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.

[SoFloFreeper]

The above is the "abstract" of the article published barely over one month ago.

Medical ethics journals are essentially proposing that others get to define WHEN someone is a "person".

Sound familiar?

Not considered a "person" by the authorities of the day...Dred Scott.


Not considered a "person" by the authorities of his day...an unidentified Bosnian Muslim man.


Not considered "persons" by the authorities of their day...Jewish children in Germany during Nazism.


Not considered "persons" by the authorities of their day: black African Christians, Muslims, and animists of South Sudan.


Not considered a "person" by many in the United States...an eight week old human in the womb.

And now...out in the open...


Not considered a "person" by some medical "ethicists"...a newborn human being.

[Donnafrflorida]

satans hands at work

[Drill Thrawl]

In regards to the "End Times", the Rapture, book or Revelations etc... I have always wondered why a loving God would do such things.

I no longer wonder.

[docbnj]

This is blatant “ageism.” Why should we not we able to abort older people, people of any age? I frequently get annoyed at certain people who are in my way, or who disturb my view of things. Why should we not be able simply to eliminate them?

The authors of this article are pickers. They don’t follow through to the logical conclusion.

[DManA]

You can get a subsidize abortion any time for nine months. That’s not long enough time to make a decision?

What kind of monster would carry a baby in her belly for nine months then kill it.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled***

This is not new. Some French magazine proposed the killing of newborns back around 1981.

[KC_Lion]

Hmm...You know what The Dred Scott V. Sandford and Roe v. Wade has in Common.....

Oh yes, the fact the it was the Supreme Court in both, that has stripped Citizens of their rights, Wow, the Branch that the founders thought would be least intrusive has Dictatorial Powers over who is/not a Person, Alive, can live or die.

The Supreme court is suppose to check the Legislative and Executive, but they are appointed by the people they are suppose to over see and have No Power to enforce their rulings on the Executive or Legislative (See Worcester v. Georgia) The Supreme Court has never truly worked the way the founders intened it. It has instead became 9 Supreme Soviets.

[Sgt_Schultze]

To libdems, if a woman seeks an abortion, she is entitled to her corpse.

[docbnj]

The authors write: “We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

This ignores the prospective nature of the newborn, almost all of whose nature is geared to future growth and maturity.

It also is likely that the authors themselves daily pass through a quiescent part of the sleep cycle, where they cannot meet the very test they apply to a newborn. Do they then loose their personhood, and their right-to-life at that point; or when they might be under anesthesia; or when “dead” drunk?

If we give no credit to the prospective structures and behavior of a fetus or of a newborn, then of course we cannot recognize the prospective view of an adult, and the anticipation of any possible afterlife, heaven or hell; or if a Hindu or Buddhist, any rebirth for ultimate state of Nirvana.

A great paradox is that a person under this scheme then only exists in the present, as an adult who has demands, but only the shallowest view of the future: and that stance describes quite well an infant.

If we therefore all are more infantile in our behavior (which I long have felt is the political trend), then we all loose our personhood (under the authors’ rules), and can be folded up and “put away” at anyone’s convenience.

Thus the plans for infants envisioned by these “ethicists” are reduced to a scheme for the total suicide of all mankind.

[Prospero]

Back when I was a liberal Democrat, more than thirty years ago now, Frances Schaeffer (III) presented the first compelling argument against abortion that began the process of waking me up. He wrote enabling abortion was lifting the line that separates life with rights bound to be respected from non-life, that when that line was erased essentially nothing could prevent the enabling of infanticide and euthanasia.

Sure enough.

[ScottinVA]

I read through the article and am completely stunned by how these people can discuss the murder of a newborn human being in such clinical vernacular.

Humanity has taken such a dark path...

[fabian]

yes, and we will pay a big big price nationally. Here is also how satan works...http://youtu.be/74VSwO0j4Tw

[pepperdog]

bookmark

[exit82]

Will there be a 100 year statute of limitations with respect to after birth abortion?