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

Skip to comments.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
UK Telegraph ^ | February 29, 2012 | Stephen Adams

Posted on 02/29/2012 12:48:43 PM PST by Pinkbell

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.

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”.

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.”

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’.

“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”.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; corruption; crushliberalism; democrats; duplicate; ethics; eugenics; fourthreich; healthcare; infanticide; liberalfascism; liberalism; liberals; moralabsolutes; moralcollapse; murder; obama; obamacare; progressives; prolife; satan; satanic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last
One might read the title to this and be fooled that the "experts" are admitting that abortion kills a person in and out of the womb and should be ended, but one would be sadly very wrong.

“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.”

This is the logical conclusion of the abortion movement, is it not? One of the arguments used for abortion is that what is in the womb is not a person, and a person is then defined by intellect, capabilities, ability to contribute to society, etc. It can be pointed out that those same qualities can be attributed to newborns, the very ill/disabled, and the elderly. Often times abortion supporters sputter around and dodge these points, but those who conducted this study seem to acknowledge this. Instead of then concluding that abortion must end, they decide to open the pool of people eligible to be killed.

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.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

They have to KEEP their child? God forbid.

Actually, there are adoptive parents who would be more than willing to take a child with, say, Down Sydrome if the parents consider the child a "burden".

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

Here we go with the state, and that's the problem with government control. The government can decide that a person costs too much and is not worth it. If this was legalized, they'd then advocate euthanasia I suppose. Abortion is already advocated for disabled children in the womb.

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”.

Of course they do. They love to manipulate the language so horrific things don't sound as bad as they are. That's why we have terms like "choice" and "termination".

Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.

Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled 'What is the problem with euthanasia?'

He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.

Isn't it wonderful? They are teaching students about ethics? This is what Rick Santorum was referring to when he talked about liberal indoctrination at colleges.

Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.

That's true. Peter Singer has gone before them.

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.”

The irony here is staggering. People should be outraged. They are the ones who wish to kill based on their own moral certainty that they are more of a person than the unborn/babies. They are the ones who are dangerous, not the objectors.

1 posted on 02/29/2012 12:48:54 PM PST by Pinkbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; little jeremiah; narses

Pro-life and Moral Absolutes Ping!


2 posted on 02/29/2012 12:49:54 PM PST by Pinkbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

What about when they become smart-mouthed teenagers? Can we off them then?

Is this what is next?


3 posted on 02/29/2012 12:52:19 PM PST by wolfcreek (‘closed eye’ mentality is the reason for our current reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Unbelievably EVIL!


4 posted on 02/29/2012 12:54:26 PM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Oddly enough, I believe just the opposite - that abortion is no different that killing a baby, or any other person.


5 posted on 02/29/2012 12:54:55 PM PST by knittnmom (Save the earth! It's the only planet with chocolate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

This should be no surprise. Sarah Palin was denounced when she claimed we were headed for death panels...clearly, one can see where this is going.


6 posted on 02/29/2012 12:56:40 PM PST by kjo (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

What about when they become smart-mouthed teenagers? Can we off them then?

Is this what is next?

 
 
No. Experts say we should wait till they are old helpless bed-wetters in a nursing home - using way too much of our precious Obama-Care resources.
 
THEN we off them.


7 posted on 02/29/2012 12:57:32 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This mean Liberals and/or Libertarians (Same Thing) NO LIBS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Those who believe it is okay to kill a child are repugnant. On the other hand, I’m in favor of retroactive abortion, and the persons responsible for writing the article on killing newborns should be first in line.


8 posted on 02/29/2012 1:01:51 PM PST by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

When values are left up to human whims and the principles of evolution, civilization is completely screwed. Tell me again. Why did we stop Hitler?


9 posted on 02/29/2012 1:02:06 PM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

This is becoming civil war material.

If we catch anyone killing a live child...all bets are off.


10 posted on 02/29/2012 1:02:50 PM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
So much for the slippery slope... "society" is now about where this kid is... (and seems to have a smile on its face as well with krap like this)


11 posted on 02/29/2012 1:03:43 PM PST by C210N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kjo

Leftists always get really upset when you expose an inconvenient truth about their policies or beliefs.


12 posted on 02/29/2012 1:05:13 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

Yes it is. Note no sarcasm.

What the hell happened to the West?


13 posted on 02/29/2012 1:05:15 PM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

Sadly children are killed all too frequently.
I’m old enough to remember when a murder was front page news.
Our “liberal” society has so devalued life that murders are hardly mentioned.


14 posted on 02/29/2012 1:05:15 PM PST by nascarnation (DEFEAT BARAQ 2012 DEPORT BARAQ 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

Most lib Dem Rats probably support this.

Murderers at heart.


15 posted on 02/29/2012 1:09:03 PM PST by LowTaxesEqualsProsperity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

I know they probably didn’t mean it this way, but they are right.


16 posted on 02/29/2012 1:09:37 PM PST by Joe the Pimpernel (Islam is a religion of peace, and Moslems reserve the right to behead anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

The authors are little different from Hitler.

They should be repent or be derided for the rest of their miserable lives.


17 posted on 02/29/2012 1:12:34 PM PST by LowTaxesEqualsProsperity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

And so the we move down the road of moral relativity.


18 posted on 02/29/2012 1:14:25 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe the Pimpernel
I know they probably didn’t mean it this way, but they are right.

What exactly are you talking about?

19 posted on 02/29/2012 1:14:30 PM PST by FreedomOfExpression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: C210N

except he’d be going down a port-o-let hole in a more accurate analogy. (Still smiling of course.)


20 posted on 02/29/2012 1:14:41 PM PST by Sax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LowTaxesEqualsProsperity

They have no grounds for condemning the Holocaust.


21 posted on 02/29/2012 1:16:12 PM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

What if we had the ability to determine if they had the Alzheimer gene/tendencies? No use waiting their ‘whole’ lives.


22 posted on 02/29/2012 1:16:18 PM PST by wolfcreek (‘closed eye’ mentality is the reason for our current reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Journal of “Practical” Ethics???? LOL!


23 posted on 02/29/2012 1:17:02 PM PST by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomOfExpression

My guess is that FReeper is saying that there really IS no moral distinction between the two. The difference is that the authors of this paper think both are morally acceptable, while this FReeper (and every person with a conscience) feels they are both morally repugnant.


24 posted on 02/29/2012 1:17:55 PM PST by Choose Ye This Day (The thing that counts is not what we could do, but what we actually do. -- Leo Spears)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita

Unfortunately, “believably” evil.

I wish that I were shocked, but I am not. I wish that I were suprised, but I am not.

Once you accept the killing of innocent people as moral and right, where can you logically draw the line?

“Ethics” = morals for people that don’t have any.


25 posted on 02/29/2012 1:18:29 PM PST by chesley (Eat what you want, and die like a man. Never trust anyone who hasn't been punched in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Re: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say.

I agree, they are both murder


26 posted on 02/29/2012 1:19:12 PM PST by jesseam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

I’m sorry, that was CENTER for “Practical” Ethics.

Kinda like the Center for “Convenient” Ethics.


27 posted on 02/29/2012 1:19:12 PM PST by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell
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”.
I don't see why the authors should object. The "fanatics" have determined that self-proclaimed academic ethics experts are not "actual persons" and "do not have a moral right to life". Sounds familiar.
28 posted on 02/29/2012 1:19:30 PM PST by rightwingcrazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chesley

I think I’ve got the whole “ethics” vs “morals” thing figured out.

Leftist atheists prefer the term “ethics” because ethics are self defined. This is the “alternate truth” that was offered up in Genesis 3 (you will be as gods, knowing good and evil).

Morals are implicitly objective and external to human definition. Leftists don’t like that. It’s “confining” and “oppressive” and, frankly, insulting to their superior intellect.


29 posted on 02/29/2012 1:21:13 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

logically consistent within their view of the world that man is nothing more than an intellectual animal, absolutely evil in the world which we observe around us


30 posted on 02/29/2012 1:24:17 PM PST by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

It’s amazing how slow the mainstream media is to pick this stuff up.

I posted a thread on this five days ago:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2851320/posts


31 posted on 02/29/2012 1:25:49 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Yeow! Talk about your slippery slopes!

If this is what passes for medical ethics we are in big trouble! Time to shut down the “Journal of Medical Ethics” or rename it to something more accurate, like “Dr. Goebbels’ Journal of Medical Ethics”.


32 posted on 02/29/2012 1:34:10 PM PST by TheDon (The Democrat Party, the party of the KKK (tm))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

There is no such thing as “ethics” that aren’t “situational” or “pragmatic” ethics.

That’s the whole point of “ethics” - you can make ad hoc decisions in any situation to suit your desires or end goals.


33 posted on 02/29/2012 1:34:15 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Afetr gay marriage,what other type of marriage will there be? And now this and a push to legalize pedophilia.Pro-lifers argued about the dangers of the slippery slope.We have arrived.


34 posted on 02/29/2012 1:38:42 PM PST by georgia peach (georgia peach)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector
the vikings say abort a few experts


35 posted on 02/29/2012 1:44:54 PM PST by AnTiw1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: knittnmom

My exact first thought. If they are saying it is okay to kill a baby after it is born then it is okay to kill any human, which it is not, therefore it is not okay to kill an unborn human.

But they are blind to the truth and are pro-death. So, are they okay with their own death since time has no end and not in the equation?


36 posted on 02/29/2012 1:52:04 PM PST by huldah1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Abortion is the tyranny of the extrouterine over the introuterine.


37 posted on 02/29/2012 1:53:12 PM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita

Molech is alive and well and is still worshiped by many!


38 posted on 02/29/2012 1:55:43 PM PST by Anti-Hillary (Under Romney's Governorship, MA. was the birthplace of gay marriage & socialized medicine in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita

Molech is alive and well and is still worshiped by many!


39 posted on 02/29/2012 1:55:43 PM PST by Anti-Hillary (Under Romney's Governorship, MA. was the birthplace of gay marriage & socialized medicine in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
It's not just the West. There are groups all over this planet who favor infanticide/population culling as a form of protecting the Earth.

At least that's how it's put forward.

40 posted on 02/29/2012 1:57:00 PM PST by wolfcreek (‘closed eye’ mentality is the reason for our current reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Imagine that. A slippery slope.


41 posted on 02/29/2012 1:58:54 PM PST by Not The Other One
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Imagine that. A slippery slope.


42 posted on 02/29/2012 1:59:01 PM PST by Not The Other One
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Remember that professional ethics has nothing to do with right or wrong or morality. It’s the line a professional cannot cross without sanction, that’s all.


43 posted on 02/29/2012 2:00:42 PM PST by steve8714 (Yoda's speech to Luke; copied from Jack Webb in "The D.I.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary

It is literally becoming more UNREAL by the day.


44 posted on 02/29/2012 2:00:55 PM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell
Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

This is a true statement and therein lies the problem.

45 posted on 02/29/2012 2:04:21 PM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Two fetuses are in a bar commiserating,

“Used to be that if you could clear the labia, you were home free. Now you have to chew through the umbilical cord and run like hell. I tell you, it’s murder out there.”


46 posted on 02/29/2012 2:04:59 PM PST by RinaseaofDs (Does beheading qualify as 'breaking my back', in the Jeffersonian sense of the expression?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

And it’s the liberals who call conservatives Nazis.

Himmler would be proud.


47 posted on 02/29/2012 2:15:11 PM PST by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political party's in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Practical Ethics = Godless moral relativism

In many ways the First Commandment is broken all the time. People worship themselves - gods of their own making.


48 posted on 02/29/2012 2:17:33 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita
Same type of people designed and want to run Obamacare
49 posted on 02/29/2012 2:22:47 PM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

This is why Orwell wrote so well: http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit (see meaningless words)

“The moral status of an infant [human baby] is equivalent to that of a fetus [baby human] in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Here we see “right to life” redefined in a nonsensical way. What is an individual? Here it gets even stupider.

“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.”

Thus it would be reasonable to kill the authors/philosophers of this paper in their sleep. Being unconscious they’d have no idea that they were being “deprived of this existence” and therefore suffer no loss.

Dealing with liberals is like watching a Niagara Falls of horrible ideas pouring forth. We need more than a TEA cup to end their madness.


50 posted on 02/29/2012 2:24:44 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 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