Skip to comments.Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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.
The journals 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.
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.
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 Downs syndrome cases in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.
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 ...
On the bright side,
“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.
And why not? Since they too can easily be reclassified as "not a real person". Why should age be relevant if birth is not?
...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.
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!
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?
I would say yes, using their reasoning: they do nothing to justify their existence and simply suck at the public teat.
Pharaoh or King Herod ring a bell????
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.
Peter Singer, a professor at Princeton, has been saying this for a while.
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.
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.
Once you say murder of any kind, ie. abortion, is OK, then all murder is OK.
This is awesome! What a “Modest Proposal”...
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.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
The "experts" are correct, there is ZERO DIFFERENCE between abortion and killing a baby or a toddler or teenager or adult.
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.
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?
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
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.