Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Telegraph ^ | 4/12/2012 | Staff Writers

Posted on 04/12/2012 5:00:22 AM PDT by IbJensen

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”.

-snip-

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”.

-snip-

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.”

-snip-

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

-snip-

Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary's University College, said: "If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say 'it's doesn't matter, she can get another one,' is that what we want to happen?

"What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new."

...Dr Stammers added: "This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide."

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortionafterbirth; babykillers; moralabsolutes; murderingchildren; prolife; shameofamerica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: RightOnline

On the bright side,
your average
“wanna feel good about myself because I’m a good person but I support a woman’s right to choose but don’t want to admit I support baby murder”

sheeperal will have no place to hide now.


21 posted on 04/12/2012 5:45:18 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
the article's authors had received death threats

And why not? Since they too can easily be reclassified as "not a real person". Why should age be relevant if birth is not?

22 posted on 04/12/2012 5:45:56 AM PDT by OrangeHoof (Obama: The Dr. Kevorkian of the American economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Another thought...

...because they are “morally irrelevant”...

Their whole argument seems to be based around a false premise. That is, life somehow has to be justified, have some meaning, some worth. Perhaps these ethicists should look up the words "intrinsic" and "inalienable" then reconsider.

It is the same fundamental flaw in thinking that leads people to do/say the stupidest things. For example, the 2nd Amendment identifies an inalienable right. Yet there are still people out there who want others to somehow justify their possession of firearms. Has anyone ever questioned your 1st Amendment rights? Anyone ever said why should you be allowed to speak or express yourself? No, that's absurd. So is saying you must justify a need/use for a firearm or not be allowed to possess one.

Same flawed thinking reflected here. This notion that without some moral relevancy a life has no value and can be terminated. I wonder, what do people who espouse this kind of drivel feel if/when they see their error? The realization of sheer idiocy of their previous statements must be crushing.

23 posted on 04/12/2012 5:52:03 AM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obama now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk; RightOnline

Abortion rights advocates have spent decades arguing that the “fetus” is not the “baby.” These guys (likely embraced and admired by liberals) just reconnected the two. Beautiful!


24 posted on 04/12/2012 6:10:03 AM PDT by OldCountryBoy (You can't make this stuff up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Killing babies no different from abortion

DUH!

What did they think they were killing, frogs? And who the hell are these "experts." How can you be an "expert" when it comes to killing American babies?

25 posted on 04/12/2012 6:22:23 AM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Okay, how do you get that and then try to make that argument? Teh Stupid…it burns.
26 posted on 04/12/2012 6:31:18 AM PDT by RichInOC (No! BAD Rich! (What'd I say?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

I would say yes, using their reasoning: they do nothing to justify their existence and simply suck at the public teat.


27 posted on 04/12/2012 6:40:43 AM PDT by Adder (Da bro has GOT to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Adder

Pharaoh or King Herod ring a bell????


28 posted on 04/12/2012 6:46:39 AM PDT by nevermorelenore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

Excellent. I have never heard such a solid and succint argument which should have been so obvious. The fetus vs. person argument is a false choice, as you have said so well.


29 posted on 04/12/2012 6:52:47 AM PDT by Anima Mundi (ENVY IS JUST PASSIVE, LAZY GREED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Peter Singer, a professor at Princeton, has been saying this for a while.


30 posted on 04/12/2012 6:52:49 AM PDT by Pharmboy (She turned me into a Newt...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainAmiigaf; IbJensen
It starts, but WHERE does it end?

If you want part of that answer, read "The Beating Heart Donors" in the current (May) issue of "Discover" Magazine. It presents some very ugly facts about the organ transplant business -- and yes, it's a business, just like abortion, and currently racks up $20 billion a year.

The term "beating heart cadavers" (BHC) has been coined for donors whose condition meets the current (and very controversial!) definition of brain death. Yet these BHCs can perform most normal bodily functions and can even bear babies. There's strong evidence they can also feel excruciating pain during the lengthy organ-harvesting surgeries.

As the article's pull-quote says: "The organ trade claims transplants are the neat extraction of body parts from totally dead, unfeeling corpses. But it's more complicated and messier than that."

Others can decide for themselves but I'm in the process of reversing my previous decision to be an organ donor.

31 posted on 04/12/2012 6:56:18 AM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

It’s not murder when they do it.

They were against the idea that abortion was killing a baby back then, but now it is the same?

They cannot have it both ways.


32 posted on 04/12/2012 7:00:47 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Once you say murder of any kind, ie. abortion, is OK, then all murder is OK.


33 posted on 04/12/2012 7:11:04 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Over half of U.S. murders are of black people, and 90% of them are committed by other black people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

This is awesome! What a “Modest Proposal”...


34 posted on 04/12/2012 7:30:34 AM PDT by Paradox (I want Obama defeated. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Please see:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2871112/posts?page=10#10

The cult of Moloch (Ba’al), bearing a multitude of names, has been with us since the time of the ancient Hebrews. But its one commonality is to always demand the blood sacrifice of infants to its god.


35 posted on 04/12/2012 7:31:56 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("It is already like a government job," he said, "but with goats." -- Iranian goat smuggler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

The "experts" are correct, there is ZERO DIFFERENCE between abortion and killing a baby or a toddler or teenager or adult.

36 posted on 04/12/2012 7:36:16 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

WOW, the slippery slope just gets steeper and slicker!

If you don’t want a living child, put him or her up for adoption, for Heaven’s sake! There are good hearts out there looking for children to adopt. Its not like the orphanages are overflowing with unwanted children.


37 posted on 04/12/2012 7:37:41 AM PDT by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

That is the heart of this debate, their assumption that abortion is ethical and morally acceptable. These people clearly illustrate the evil of abortion, as they are now stretching the justification of murder to include infants. How long now before anybody who they deem unfit will be on the list?


38 posted on 04/12/2012 7:40:53 AM PDT by cbvanb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Bump


39 posted on 04/12/2012 7:44:52 AM PDT by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
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”. -snip- 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”.

No, sounds more like the threateners have decided that the article's authors are not actual persons and do not have a moral right to life.* In Other Words, they are attempting to hoist them upon their own petard.

And "Practical ethics"??? can we file that one under military intelligence, jumbo shrimp, and other such contradictions in terms?

* just reporting, not advocating

40 posted on 04/12/2012 7:45:55 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Steyn: Obama sez: "Nice little Supreme Court you got here. Shame if anything were to happen to it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson