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

Skip to comments.

Journal of Medical Ethics Says Newborn Babies not People, Can be Killed
FrontPage ^ | August 10, 2013 | Daniel Greenfield

Posted on 08/12/2013 4:02:47 AM PDT by NYer

And why not? If we go on defining human life down, we’ll end up determining that anyone can be killed at any time in the name of the greater good.

That’s where this road of warped ethics inevitably leads.

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 academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

You know, if you’re going to call for murdering babies, maybe you need to drop the “Ethics” part. If you’re going to be the worst people in the world, at least stop calling your behavior ethical.

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”.

Apparently the values of a liberal society involve killing newborn babies. And if that’s so, is it fanatical to be opposed to killing newborn babies or is it fanatical to advocate killing them?

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

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.”

Perhaps a study can be done which would discuss the moral status of people who deny the right of infants to live.

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

Call it the Fetusization of babies.

“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.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded 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”.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Wendy Davis would be proud.

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” – a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

No, the society we live on should urge the murder of infants based on the moral certainity of ethical professionals such as these.

 


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: abortion; defectivenewborns; disablednewborns; infanticide; life; murder
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 08/12/2013 4:02:47 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...

Catholic ping!


2 posted on 08/12/2013 4:03:15 AM PDT by NYer ( "Run from places of sin as from the plague."--St John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

It wont be long from now when they say the same thing about adults with defects.


3 posted on 08/12/2013 4:07:51 AM PDT by Clean_Sweep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Intellectually and morally bankrupt position.
Clearly, another formerly credible body and been infected by Marxist thought.
4 posted on 08/12/2013 4:09:25 AM PDT by Amagi (Buying "Green" means purchasing inferior quality at increased cost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

For the common good, anyone advocating the destruction of the next generation of taxpayers, who will have to support this generation’s profligate social spending, should be deemed dangerous to society and should be jailed until they recant their destructive doctrines.


5 posted on 08/12/2013 4:09:31 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Where does it stop. At what age can a human be involuntary terminated. 65, 70, 80?


6 posted on 08/12/2013 4:10:06 AM PDT by DownInFlames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Trayvon Martin was too young to vote, therefore he was not yet a person, therefore he was merely post-partum aborted. </sarcasm>
7 posted on 08/12/2013 4:13:26 AM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

As parody in the past, I have made this point: If a fetus may be aborted as it incapable of sustaining life on its own, then logic dictates that we should be able to abort that fetus until it is 18 years of age.

Now it seems that parody has become “ethics”.


8 posted on 08/12/2013 4:17:21 AM PDT by Makana (Patience is minor despair dressed up as a virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clean_Sweep

The most fitting name for these people is “Nazi.”


9 posted on 08/12/2013 4:19:47 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

My new publication, the “Journal of Arbitrary Ethics,” has defined Prof Savulescu, Alberto Giubilini, and Francesca Minerva as non-human. This would allow them to be killed by any of our readers who are interested.

Note: This is NOT a death threat, just a statement of fact.


10 posted on 08/12/2013 4:21:14 AM PDT by Right Wing Assault (Dick Obama is more inexperienced now than he was before he was elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amagi

I would say, “Nazi.” But then in all essentials, Nazism and Bolshevism converge as enemies of mankind.


11 posted on 08/12/2013 4:23:24 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

If newborn babies aren’t “persons” with a defensible right to life, why should we consider “ethicists” persons with a defensible right to life? It all comes to down to whether they can protect themselves when someone else decides they should go.


12 posted on 08/12/2013 4:23:36 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Ask me about the Weiner Wager. Support Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Terrorists with axes kill senior citizens

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3053585/posts

Simply a coincidence? I think NOT. /S


13 posted on 08/12/2013 4:23:42 AM PDT by Makana (Patience is minor despair dressed up as a virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
“Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics”

I guess the ‘practical’ part means situational ‘ethics’ that can be bent to support whatever you want. Sad, and dangerous. What passes for ‘intellectualism’ and academic is pathetic.

14 posted on 08/12/2013 4:23:44 AM PDT by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Absolutely speechless.

These people have no Right to use the words ‘ethics,’ or ‘moral,’ in any part of their language.


15 posted on 08/12/2013 4:23:56 AM PDT by EBH (The 'silent majority' is just as responsible for where this country is today as the screaming mob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
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 academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

I'm sorry, but I must have missed a memo.... Exactly who (or what) gaves these vile, demented, libtard scum the authority to make this proclamation?

16 posted on 08/12/2013 4:27:10 AM PDT by Common Sense 101 (Hey libs... If your theories fly in the face of reality, it's not reality that's wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I can name three people from this article that might not have a moral right to live.


17 posted on 08/12/2013 4:28:05 AM PDT by citizen (We get the government we choose. America either voted for Obama or handed it to him by not voting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Imagine the backlash if conservatives finally said “OK! WE GIVE UP. You liberals can go ahead and kill your own offspring. We no longer care; In fact, we now encourage it.”


18 posted on 08/12/2013 4:33:02 AM PDT by LittleBillyInfidel (This tagline has been formatted to fit the screen. Some content has been edited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LittleBillyInfidel

link to article pub. in 2012 — http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full


19 posted on 08/12/2013 4:38:36 AM PDT by qwertyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Amagi

IIRC it was more of the German Nazi “thought”. The Marxists were more concerned about killing you because of what you owned or because of what you thought.
Kinda like most American cities today.


20 posted on 08/12/2013 4:42:28 AM PDT by BilLies (I despise The Progressive Liberal American Press, its corporations, management, reporters, readers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer
I always said (sarcasically I thought) that if a baby can be "aborted" (murdered) after the point where it is capable of living on its own, it's really not much of a step to post-birth abortions.

Conservatives have to do a better job of controlling the dialect. A "late term abortion" would better be described as a "pre-separation murder". Once the infant is viable, separation is a better word than abortion for describing the situation.

21 posted on 08/12/2013 4:46:25 AM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics...

Well,there's the problem right there.This is an issue of *practical* ethics versus the *impractical* variety.

22 posted on 08/12/2013 4:53:49 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (If Obama Had A City It Would Look Like Detroit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“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.”

First, note the use of the feminine pronoun “her”. Does this mean only female babies can be killed, like the Chinese do?

Second, if we apply this criteria - capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value - then ALL politicians MUST be killed. Further application of this criteria would be extended to the homeless, the handicapped, the unemployed, etc.


23 posted on 08/12/2013 4:53:51 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clean_Sweep
It wont be long from now when they say the same thing about adults with defects.

I would agree with your premise, and also add that Journal of Medical Ethics would fall into a separate but equally useless category, and we should spare us, from listening to anything they say.

Or put another way!

Dirtnaps for all Journal of Medical Ethics contributors!

24 posted on 08/12/2013 4:56:16 AM PDT by SERE_DOC ( “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” TJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

No one thinks of themselves as “the bad guy”, though I cannot remember the psychological name for that phenomenon. Human beings are marvels of self-justification. We rationalize more often than we are rational. The SS thought they were doing a GOOD thing when they gased all of those jews and other undesirables.


25 posted on 08/12/2013 4:56:58 AM PDT by Pecos (Kritarchy: government by the judges)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
“Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics”

There is no such thing as "practical ethics". There is always a right and a wrong. There is no such thing as an ethical "compromise".

26 posted on 08/12/2013 5:03:52 AM PDT by cincinnati65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The author says he received death threats. Why is he not applauding those who sent him the threats? Are they not also part of a “liberal society” like him?


27 posted on 08/12/2013 5:09:17 AM PDT by Drawsing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

If we can murder a 8 month fetus why can’t we murder an 8 month child?

Murder is Murder, and abortionists are Murder Inc.


28 posted on 08/12/2013 5:11:24 AM PDT by Venturer ( cowardice posturing as tolerance =political correctness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

pure garbage - there is a special place in hell for theese people


29 posted on 08/12/2013 5:15:34 AM PDT by WorkerbeeCitizen (I'll surrender my guns alright - bullets first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

...and the law says kill a pregnant woman and you have killed two.


30 posted on 08/12/2013 5:19:13 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drawsing
Why is he not applauding those who sent him the threats?

I wondered that, too. If a human being's right to life is determined by how others feel about him, what grounds does he have to object to anyone's feeling that he and his colleagues are expendable?

31 posted on 08/12/2013 5:19:42 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Ask me about the Weiner Wager. Support Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I wonder how many of these nutjobs are animal rights activists?


32 posted on 08/12/2013 5:21:48 AM PDT by rfreedom4u (I have a copy of the Constitution! And I'm not afraid to use it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Parodies of the past are becoming reality.


33 posted on 08/12/2013 5:24:08 AM PDT by Brooklyn Attitude (Obama being re-elected is the political equivalent of OJ being found not guilty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clean_Sweep

That wouldn’t be a new thing for ‘humanity’. Other societies have done this with the nazis and chicoms being the most recent examples.

But to your point I can see it happening here for some of the same twisted reasons.


34 posted on 08/12/2013 5:28:02 AM PDT by ealgeone (obama, border)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u

I would say all of them. But as the song says “....Enjoy it while you can because your time is coming, buddy....”


35 posted on 08/12/2013 5:28:41 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Gee lets just take the liberal death cult logic further and not only kill the babies but first harvest their usable organs then after killing them grind them up to make soilent green to feed the poor.


36 posted on 08/12/2013 5:30:46 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam! 969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pecos

Exactly right. They love these high sounding titles. Pete Singer who advocates pretty much the same thing is a Professor of Bioethics at Princeton.


37 posted on 08/12/2013 5:39:55 AM PDT by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer
Gee lets just take the liberal death cult logic further and not only kill the babies but first harvest their usable organs then after killing them grind them up to make soilent green to feed the poor.

No doubt this is part of the plan. About 10 years ago, British scientists developed a procedure to harvest eggs from aborted female babies. The plan was to use these to assist infertile couples in having children. The only impediment at that time, was a team of psychologists who determined society was not yet ready to accept such an advance. Recently, the concept resurfaced and is being re-evaluated. Imagine growing up and searching for your birth mother only to discover that she had never been born.

38 posted on 08/12/2013 5:40:16 AM PDT by NYer ( "Run from places of sin as from the plague."--St John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The Telegraph article here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

clearly outlines that this is British/Euro Liberal thinking on medical ethics.

Julian Savulescu writes in defense in its blog,
"What the response to this article reveals, through the microscope of the web, is the deep disorder of the modern world. Not that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement."

The larger point here is the consequence of permitting progressive liberals to continue to erode national identity & sovereignty, as the trend in Britain/Euro is only slightly behind the curve spearheaded by libs here in the States.

I would concur with Mr. Savulescu: Prevention of reasoned engagement of liberal values will take fanatical opposition.

I, for one, am all for it.
39 posted on 08/12/2013 5:44:42 AM PDT by logi_cal869
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
 photo EXTRA_zps6bdb3cd4.png
40 posted on 08/12/2013 6:04:54 AM PDT by baddog 219
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

They went wrong from the beginning:

“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.”

Redefine “person” in any way you want and you can do anything you want with them. Dehumanization is the normal first step for tyrants and bigots. It is how the Fabian Socialists did it. It is how the Nazis did it. These “Ethicists” are just following the established Socialist tradition.


41 posted on 08/12/2013 6:06:55 AM PDT by Seraphicaviary (St. Michael is gearing up. The angels are on the ready line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

What kind of convoluted nonsense it this.

Anyone who has kids knows that a baby doesn’t show much of anything in the first few weeks. Eat, sleep, and excrete. Getting used to the world is more than enough work for them.

That the baby doesn’t do partial differential equations in the first few days is not an excuse to kill it, even if it is retarded.

How low can you get.


42 posted on 08/12/2013 6:12:34 AM PDT by Ouderkirk (To the left, everything must evidence that this or that strand of leftist theory is true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Prediction: Sooner or later some assailant who manages to take out one of our elitist political rulers with a bullet is going to try and use the defense that he was just carrying out “a retroactive abortion”.


43 posted on 08/12/2013 6:13:44 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DownInFlames

“Where does it stop. At what age can a human be involuntary terminated. 65, 70, 80?”

Coming soon.


44 posted on 08/12/2013 6:17:59 AM PDT by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The natural progression of abortion on demand.


45 posted on 08/12/2013 6:18:35 AM PDT by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

“ethics” are what Humanists substitute for morals.


46 posted on 08/12/2013 6:19:36 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NYer

You can see the progression: Ok, when do they realize they are themselves a being?

When they can walk? When they can talk? Ok.

Next is we can kill others whenever we think they’ve lost the smallest attribute of being a human.

Demonic.

But, it will come as our society continues to collapse under Marxist brainwashing from our educators and media.....barring divine intervention and revival.....

Looks like Christians need to learn Russian and be ready to move.....

Who woulda thunk it.......


47 posted on 08/12/2013 6:36:43 AM PDT by Arlis (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

We have been down this same road before. My parents’ generation had to go to war to stop the madness when it became a core value of the National SOCIALISTS in Germany in the 1930’s. The creation of the nation of Israel was justified in part because an extension of this same mindset concluded that Jews were not persons. The National SOCIALISTS in Germany set into motion an industrial-scale effort to murder every Jew they could get their hands on.


48 posted on 08/12/2013 6:40:13 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2; DownInFlames
Where does it stop. At what age can a human be involuntary terminated. 65, 70, 80?”

Coming soon.

Social Security was constructed on the pyramid principal that young workers can support the aged as their population shrinks. This was before the legalization of abortion. Roe v Wade has resulted in the elimination of 50 million taxpayers. As a result, the pyramid has now flipped. The baby boomer generation that legalized abortion, is now retiring. The younger generations, diminished by the loss of tax paying citizens, is being taxed higher in order to support the burden of the retirees.

It won't take long before the youth are elected to office and they will feel justified to legalize euthanasia in retaliation for those who eliminated their peers. Mark my words!

49 posted on 08/12/2013 9:01:07 AM PDT by NYer ( "Run from places of sin as from the plague."--St John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: NYer
From the article. They aren't even pretending that it's in the best interest of the baby. These people are advocating murder for selfishness and convenience. But then again that's what conventional abortion abortion is about and it's been the law of the land here for a generation.

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

50 posted on 08/12/2013 9:20:28 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 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