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 ...
They have no grounds for condemning the Holocaust.
What if we had the ability to determine if they had the Alzheimer gene/tendencies? No use waiting their ‘whole’ lives.
Journal of “Practical” Ethics???? LOL!
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.
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.
Re: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say.
I agree, they are both murder
I’m sorry, that was CENTER for “Practical” Ethics.
Kinda like the Center for “Convenient” Ethics.
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.
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.
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
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
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”.
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.
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.
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?
Abortion is the tyranny of the extrouterine over the introuterine.
Molech is alive and well and is still worshiped by many!
Molech is alive and well and is still worshiped by many!
At least that's how it's put forward.
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.