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 ...
These people are running your country.
Another day in Obamaland.
If what they say is true, then there’s no reason not to have after-birth abortions of Australian ethicists. The sooner, the better.
This topic should have a ‘barf alert’.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
“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)
These ‘people’ are pure evil...
Teaching evolution as fact is the horse before the abortion cart.
I think that there is no reason not to end the life of Australian “ethicists”.
I had thought this whole line of thinking was put to rest at the Nuremburg Trials. Apparently, I was mistaken.
—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.
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?
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.
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.