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 one hand you have an innocent life with the whole world before them. On the other you have an individual who breaks the rules of society as they see fit. Punishing the innocent and forgiving the guilty contains no common sense at all.
To satisfy the baby-haters, why not allow the parents to withhold their right to abort a child until age 15? That way they could see if the child was indeed developing the behavior pattern they established. If not, euthanize. Same damned difference!
Then, by extension, killing these so-called “experts” is also OK?
These experts are moral failures unless they off themselves as soon as possible.
Where's Dr. Kevorkian when you REALLY need him?
He’s dead Jim!
I would like to inquire if the “beliefs” of these “MEDICAL ETHICISTS” is much removed from the cultured, logical, and carefully thought out justification for the building and utilization of the NAZI concentration/extermination centers.
Would these “people” nod with agreement at the vast piles of tiny clothes and toys taken from those infants and children being driven into the gas chambers? I’m serious.
Would these “people” smile at the accumulation of prosthetic limbs, taken from those who could “no longer function” to the betterment of society.
It starts, but WHERE does it end?
If that is true, can we advocate the post birth abortion of say the president or the prime minister?
Would a post birth abortion sidestep the various laws against assassination?
this is why leftists with common sense(I’m thinking Ed Koch) considers late term abortions the same as infanticide.
instead of embracing the reality of late term abortions being infanticide...the extra-loony left decides that infanticide should be legitimized.
“Journal of Medical Ethics”? Was the founder Joseph Mengele?
In today’s world, made evil by politicians and bureaucrats, anything’s possible.
|YEAR||Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney||Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life'|
|Bottom-Line Summary: ANN Romney Lies Thru Her Teeth||Ann Romney, 1994: Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (Ann Romneys Planned Parenthood Donation||Ann Romney, 2011: In the past youve said hes changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; weve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)|
|Bottom-Line Summary: Mitt Romney Lies Thru His Teeth||Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) + ...my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007)||So, not only does Ann Romney tell Parade Magazine November 2011 that they've never changed re: abortion and that they've always been pro-life, but Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace part-way through their 2007 campaign that: I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice...This was seven months after he said in January 2007 that he was always for life.|
|Romney, goin' back to 1970 when Romney's Mom ran for Senate||"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)||"'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"|
|1994 (Campaign)||"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support sustain ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word sustain for support for their own prophet||Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007)|
|1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) → 2001||(a) Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/ann-romneys-planned-parenthood-donation/">Ann Romneys Planned Parenthood Donation (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: "Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; "Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakies house and that she clearly remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; "In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts||2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)|
|2002-2004||I will preserve and protect a womans right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard (Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?||Nov. '04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)|
|2005||May 27 2005: Romney affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!||What about his gubernatorial record '03-'06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in '05 some 'pro-life' decisions. "As governor, Ive had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action Ive taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an '02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, '05 press conference commitment as well. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine|
|2006||April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).||"As governor, Ive had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action Ive taken as the governor that relates|
|Early 2007||On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?||Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering "I was always for life: "I am firmly pro-life I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!|
|Summer 2007||"I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at '94 & '02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"||Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = Whatever he was from '70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion 'inlook' or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?|
|December 2007 vs. November 2011 (Pro-treating offspring as research refuse late in previous POTUS campaign vs. now claiming 'never changed...always pro-life'||December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!"||In the past youve said hes changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; weve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)|
The irony is that it is true - Killing babies IS no different from abortion because preborn children are babies too -
That’s the very reason abortion is wrong!
Preborn children are also fetuses but that does not cause them not to be babies (persons!). For example: A toddler is a toddler and also a person, a teenager is a teenager and also a person, etc... a fetus is a fetus and also a baby (person), etc.
Anyway this evil premise exists in the US too - Peter Singer at Princeton for example.
“Where’s Dr. Kevorkian when you REALLY need him?”
Hitler’s grandson is available.
-—Then, by extension, killing these so-called experts is also OK?-—
(Rimshot) They didn’t see that one coming.
Yep....and I guarantee you that these droolers totally miss the irony.
It’s really too bad the parent of these “experts” didn’t feel the same.
The irony here is that by making this so obviously flawed argument these self-same "medical ethicists" have shown they lack any moral character and are divorced from the common human experience. Thus they themselves are "morally irrelevant" and by their own logic should be murdered by their parents.
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
Are the innocent victims of collateral damage morally irrelevant also?
Why are "medical ethicists" so often lacking in morality?
This is where we're headed.
They're absolutely right on this point. Abortion IS killing a baby.
Murder is murder.
Too bad they don't see THAT point.
You are ABSOKUTELY correct!!
Liberals will lie. They will create their own facts. They will even believe their own fabrications.
Occassionally, there is one who sees the facts as they are. They see the facts truly and correctly; they see facts that both they and we conservatives can agree on. AND THEY DRAW EXACTLY THE WRONG CONCLUSIONS.
How is this possible?? I do not know; but Satan will explain it to them when they come into HIS kingdom.
This is pure evil.
I have a grand-niece who is expecting twins in mid-June. She has been married nearly 5 years and she wants to be a Mom - desperately! She has suffered two miscarriages and one stillborn daughter who was only 2 weeks from full-term when the cord strangled the infant. This couple is praying so hard for God to grant them a safe birth for their twins. Every day that she keeps the twins in her womb is a day for rejoicing.
People who write such evil things consider themselves ethicists???? What sort of idiocy have we come to?
For forty years they mocked anyone who said that abortion put us on a “slippery slope” to infanticide.
They're right: therefore babies should not be killed before OR after birth.
It’s not a slippery slope.
It’s the same thing.
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.