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 ...
Imagine that. A slippery slope.
Imagine that. A slippery slope.
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.
It is literally becoming more UNREAL by the day.
This is a true statement and therein lies the problem.
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.”
And it’s the liberals who call conservatives Nazis.
Himmler would be proud.
Practical Ethics = Godless moral relativism
In many ways the First Commandment is broken all the time. People worship themselves - gods of their own making.
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.
I recommend Seven Bowls of Wrath.
Then tell 'em, "Put some ice on it."
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
—C. S. Lewis,
God in the Dock
This article may have been posted before but it is worth repeating over and over on every news station who is willing to report it. This is the time for something like this to come out. It could help santorum as well.
“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.”
Then why have conditions? How about if the baby gets in the way of the mom’s ‘social life’. Not a good direction to go.
““fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society””
I’m good with that.
“I know they probably didn’t mean it this way, but they are right.”
What’s that?
The high and mighty super-intellectuals who so very much favor “choice” only do so as long as they are the ones who make it.
This is the silver lining of an Obama administration. The depraved liberals think it is ok to come out from under their rocks and expose who they really are.
“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.”
Couldn’t the same thing be said about some adults? Just saying’.
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.