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

Skip to comments.

"Ethicists" argue that ‘after-birth abortions’ are ethical
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ethicists-who-argued-that-after-birth-abortions-are-ethical-receive-death-threats/article2356577/ ^ | Friday, Mar. 02, 2012 11:16AM EST | Oliver Moore

Posted on 03/02/2012 9:03:45 AM PST by mkleesma

Newborns cannot be considered “persons,” meaning there is no moral reason not to perform “after-birth abortions,” argue a pair of Australian ethicists in a controversial paper that has drawn death threats.

The authors, both of whom have worked at Melbourne University, say that killing even a healthy newborn could be acceptable if raising the child would put an unacceptable burden on the family.

(Excerpt) Read more at theglobeandmail.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: afterbirthabortion
Unbelievable. Would someone please explain to me how these people can possibly be considered as "Ethicists"?
1 posted on 03/02/2012 9:03:52 AM PST by mkleesma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mkleesma

These people are running your country.

Another day in Obamaland.


2 posted on 03/02/2012 9:07:46 AM PST by Tzimisce (Never forget that the American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma

If what they say is true, then there’s no reason not to have after-birth abortions of Australian ethicists. The sooner, the better.


3 posted on 03/02/2012 9:07:49 AM PST by Dr. Thorne (Fall on your knees before Christ, your only salvation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

This topic should have a ‘barf alert’.


4 posted on 03/02/2012 9:11:32 AM PST by Jenny217
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Thorne

how late?

1 month? 1 year? 11 years? 40? 65? 80?

then literally murder of a person at ANY AGE is not unethical for any reason of burden.

she was a burden because she did not turn over the money in her purse...


5 posted on 03/02/2012 9:12:36 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma

I actually argued this with a workmate back in 1989. She said that when she was a girl her mother had an abortion because they simply could not have been able to handle another mouth to feed due to their poverty. I made the comment, “Well, would it be any worse to just have a newborn sister put down?” She saw them as completely different.

Personally, I think our culture’s position on abortion is what is stripping the soul of the nation away. Life is no longer valued as it was. It coarsens and rips at the very fabric of our culture in ways most humans can’t even see. It is one reason it is so hard to use that argument. It simply will not convince the willfully ignorant.


6 posted on 03/02/2012 9:14:43 AM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma

We can test the ethical theory by starting with them. . . it might change their tune. Only a sociopath could propose such a thing. Someone who is amoral should not be masquerading as an ethicist. Their intent must be evil, else they would be conflicted, like my libertarian friend who is employed by state government.


7 posted on 03/02/2012 9:16:36 AM PST by RatRipper (I'll ride a turtle to work every day before I buy anything from Government Motors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma

I believe in after birth abortions of criminals called executions, self defense, and of enemies in a war that others might live. Besides those exceptions it seems immoral even from any situational ethical perspective let alone a Christian absolute moral perspective.


8 posted on 03/02/2012 9:16:45 AM PST by dog breath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma
Unbelievable. Would someone please explain to me how these people can possibly be considered as "Ethicists"?

Here is a better question. Before the baby was born, we argued that "aborting" the pregnancy was wrong. What then is "After birth abortions"? What is being "aborted" after birth if the baby we born alive and the "pregnancy" was over?

Life?

Will the next debate be about when an infant becomes a "real person" and has the right to not be aborted.

Will anyone one of these people volunteer their toddlers to be aborted? What's the difference?

9 posted on 03/02/2012 9:17:11 AM PST by Tenacious 1 (With regards to the GOP: I am prodisestablishmentarianistic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma
Philosopher Michael Tooley made the same argument in the 1970s with his "A Defense of Abortion and Infanticide" and this is one of the key philosophical points to make any any secular debate about abortion. There are only two truly philosophically relevant points at which a child's personhood can be established -- fertilization and the achievement of distinctly human self-awareness, which happens well after birth (perhaps as late as 2 years of age), so if you don't pick fertilization (which is the right answer for a variety of reasons), then you wind up on a slipperly slope that leads to supporting infanticide.

What about other criteria (like heartbeats, brain waves, viability, etc.)? They are philosophically irrelevant, because plenty of other creatures have those things yet are not considered persons. Either there is something distinctly special about being a living human individual, regardless of current capabilities (and there are also plenty of reasons why that's the right answer, such as people in comas), or we require that a creature currently have self-aware sentience or otherwise not be a person.

The only other argument that the pro-abortion side can use is that a woman's bodily autonomy is so sacred that it justifies her murdering her child. That, too, runs into the infanticide problem. A few years ago, there was a "mother" in New Jersey with an infant son who wanted to go out partying. She tried to find a babysitter but nobody would take her child, so she threw him into a river where he died. If the mother has absolutley no obligation to place her own desires and needs below those of her child in order to keep that child alive, which is the pro-abortion argument, than it becomes very difficult to explain why this woman did anything wrong.

10 posted on 03/02/2012 9:19:13 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma

“ethics” is not the same as “morals”

“Ethics” are defined subjectively by the individual and are inherently situational, pragmatic, convenient. Most people who refer to their “ethics” are simply saying that “I’ve defined good at just that level below how I want to behave and live”.

“Morals” are objectively and externally defined, and in the case of Christianity, defined by God. Liberals reject this in favor of their own ability to define right and wrong for themselves. (Gen 3:4-5 you will be as gods, knowing good and evil)


11 posted on 03/02/2012 9:19:50 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma

These ‘people’ are pure evil...


12 posted on 03/02/2012 9:20:01 AM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Teaching evolution as fact is the horse before the abortion cart.


13 posted on 03/02/2012 9:20:57 AM 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: mkleesma

I think that there is no reason not to end the life of Australian “ethicists”.


14 posted on 03/02/2012 9:22:35 AM PST by Inwoodian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma

I had thought this whole line of thinking was put to rest at the Nuremburg Trials. Apparently, I was mistaken.


15 posted on 03/02/2012 9:23:37 AM PST by sima_yi ( Reporting live from the People's Republic of Boulder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

—Teaching evolution as fact is the horse before the abortion cart.—

Actually I strongly agree with that. It was what led to eugenics, which led to even entertaining the concept of things like exterminating the Jews.

It is also a hopelessly godless world view.


16 posted on 03/02/2012 9:30:17 AM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sima_yi
I had thought this whole line of thinking was put to rest at the Nuremburg Trials.

The worst part will be that, as idiot physicians buy into this stuff, people will begin to avoid doctors more and more. They shoulda' stayed with that ole' Hippocratic oath.
17 posted on 03/02/2012 9:31:34 AM PST by BikerJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma
The Nazis, the Bolsheviks, the Khmer Rouge, the Ku Klux Klan, and even Margaret Sanger all possessed what they themselves would have described as a set of "ethics". That they were also murderous evil bastards deserving expulsion from this world with extreme prejudice doesn't mean they didn't have "ethics". Anyone who possesses a piece of paper and a seat in a university labeling them as an "Ethicist", and who argues for infanticide as an "ethical" option, are simply opening the door to their own very ethical demise. As long as you're making up new rules, professor, be aware that two or more can play that game.
18 posted on 03/02/2012 9:35:18 AM PST by katana (Just my opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma

I don’t see a lot of difference between killing a healthy fetus and killing a newborn.

Murder is murder.

Late term abortions and abortions where they kill the infant just before it is born by cutting the brainstem with scissors -—there is absolutely no difference. All are murder.

Now with Euthanasia and assisted suicides and abortion, the title Doctor is a license to kill.

Soon Obamacare will be in effect pay for these ritual murders.For isn’t rationing actually a death sentence?

Aint that great?


19 posted on 03/02/2012 9:37:05 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma

Let’s force them to stand in line to be first ones to be subject to a post-birth abortion. I’m sure they’ll change their opinions with haste.


20 posted on 03/02/2012 9:45:30 AM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

I’ve read up to age 2 or 3.


21 posted on 03/02/2012 9:47:54 AM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

I remember seeing an editorial cartoon which depicted the exterior a circa 1770 “Planned Parenthood office”. From inside comes a voice saying something to the effect of: “Your husband is a drunk and beats you and your children; there are too many mouths to feed at home already, and we have conclusive evidence that this child will be disabled by deafness. I strongly recommend termination, Mrs. Beethoven.”


22 posted on 03/02/2012 9:49:33 AM PST by Mygirlsmom (If 98% have used birth control at some point, how is this an accessibility issue?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma

Not even the most savage of beasts on Earth kill their young out of convenience or some such reason - either before or after birth.

Pure evil, no two ways about it.

Come quickly Lord Jesus...


23 posted on 03/02/2012 10:02:18 AM PST by MichaelCorleone (Stop feeding the beast; spend money only with those who support traditional American values.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

“Actually I strongly agree with that. It was what led to eugenics, which led to even entertaining the concept of things like exterminating the Jews.”

The individual who has been pushing this for a number of years is the chair of bio-ethics at Columbia U.(?) whose name is Peter Singer - a Jew. Ironic, eh?

I consider him a modern day Baruch Spinoza who was so controversial during his time that he was excommunicated from his Jewish community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

Keep in mind that all of this anti-God secular humanism, philosophy, ethics, evolution, eugenics and collectivism has been developed for the past 300 years to lay the groundwork for the extermination of the human race from planet Earth. And in order for it to move forward the world needs secular, amoral, areligious Jews to give its approval.

But the secular age is coming to a close so these sociopathic people are having to advance these anti-God, anti-life ideas as fast as possible and their agenda becomes more and more obvious galvanizing people who were unaware before then.

But the death worshipers aren’t going to be successful since the words of God, via the Jews who have stayed true to them, will prevail because more and more people are deciding to choose life and fight for it.


24 posted on 03/02/2012 10:15:21 AM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Very good point !


25 posted on 03/02/2012 10:20:41 AM PST by HangingTuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Inwoodian

I think that there is no reason not to end the life of Australian “ethicists”

True. They should not fear ‘death threats’ because it is only one of the basketful of choices the rest of us have. We can’t support these ethicists. Oh yeah, they look and think different than us so why should we keep them?


26 posted on 03/02/2012 10:25:36 AM PST by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma

I happen to agree with their logic that there is absolutely no difference between killing a baby before birth or after birth.

What is terrifying is the difference in conclusions. Their conclusion is, “Kill them all.”


27 posted on 03/02/2012 10:39:26 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

This is proof that these people are just not wired correctly. The natural thing for any person who sees a baby, a kitten, a puppy, or any baby animal is to feel happiness and joy. They are designed that way with their big eyes and adorable little features.

Anyone who speaks out about killing newborn babies is totally screwed up for thinking it, but especially for talking about it openly.

I’m sorry, but these people need to be forced into therapy, put on medication, put in jail with the rest of the serial killers, or post-birth-aborted themselves.


28 posted on 03/02/2012 11:21:18 AM PST by No Socialist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma
..if raising the child would put an unacceptable burden on the family."

adoption

29 posted on 03/02/2012 11:50:47 AM PST by eccentric (pardon any typos. I'm still waiting for my ez eyes keyboard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma

The same EXACT argument was made in 1930’s germany!!!! Then they moved on to Mentally handicapped and the elderly next...

They they went after the Jews and Homosexuals....

Then they went after the Catholics.....

And no one stood up....


30 posted on 03/02/2012 12:09:28 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

[ I’ve read up to age 2 or 3. ]

Maybe some enterprising person can create a brain scanner that detects liberal tendancies and make a “Life Detection Helmet” that has that scanner for their criteria...

At WHAT point to you determine conciousness? At What point is a person living, if it is a spread continium you could ALWAYS keep pushing it till it is legasl to kill a child until they turn 18 or something.....

You could even take their logic and argue that Children or adolescents aren’t even “Human” yet as well. When does it end?


31 posted on 03/02/2012 12:14:28 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: eccentric

[ ..if raising the child would put an unacceptable burden on the family.”

adoption ]

My Grandmother had to let go of one of her children due to financial reasons and my aunt was adopted by a caring family who couln’t have any children and they were very happy to have her and raise her as a child of their own.


32 posted on 03/02/2012 12:21:59 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma

I vote for drawing the line at 21.


33 posted on 03/02/2012 12:23:01 PM PST by Ramius (Personally, I give us one chance in three. More tea anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

From what I have read the qualifications to becoming a “person” that can’t be post-birth aborted is when they become self-aware and sentient. It’s kind of like a guilty until proven innocent way of thinking similar to the British legal system.

The problem with that is you continually grow and become more self-aware until at least age 35 so legally murdering people up to that age could be driven that high.

By not declaring a human being a “person” they are rendered as a “non-person” or also known as “sub-human” back in the Nazi era in Germany who could be killed like an animal without any thought at all.


34 posted on 03/02/2012 12:58:59 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

Think of it from the liberal social point of view as expressed by the secretary of HHS - dead people cost nothing leaving more money for the healthy and strong. Eugenics is a cost saving measure that will help to make a America stronger, balance the budget and reduce taxes!

What, you don’t want a balanced budget?/s/


35 posted on 03/02/2012 1:03:44 PM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma

At what age would it become impermissible to kill someone? For example, I believe all Democrats are mentally deficient. Would it be ethical for me to thin the herd of Democrats?


36 posted on 03/02/2012 2:01:05 PM PST by MIchaelTArchangel (Romney ruined Massachusetts. Now he wants to ruin the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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