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.
Catholic ping!
It wont be long from now when they say the same thing about adults with defects.
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.
Where does it stop. At what age can a human be involuntary terminated. 65, 70, 80?
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”.
The most fitting name for these people is “Nazi.”
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.
I would say, “Nazi.” But then in all essentials, Nazism and Bolshevism converge as enemies of mankind.
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.
Terrorists with axes kill senior citizens
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3053585/posts
Simply a coincidence? I think NOT. /S
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.
Absolutely speechless.
These people have no Right to use the words ‘ethics,’ or ‘moral,’ in any part of their language.
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?
I can name three people from this article that might not have a moral right to live.
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.”
link to article pub. in 2012 — http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full
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.
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.