Posted on 09/05/2018 6:54:24 AM PDT by EdnaMode
The field of bioethics seems to be less and less concerned about what is considered ethical in medicine, and more and more concerned with justifying a culture of death. It’s no longer enough for abortion to be legal; bioethicists are increasingly calling for the murder of born infants to be permitted. And though these calls for legal infanticide are always met with outrage, they continue to come.
Finnish bioethicist Joona Räsänen has argued in the medical journal Bioethics that pro-life arguments against infanticide “are not convincing” and “cannot show infanticide to be immoral.” While Räsänen has not argued for infanticide to be legal — yet — he does argue that parents might have the moral right to kill their born children.
[T]here might be an argument that gives, for example, the genetic parents a right to kill (or leave to die) their newborn infant even if the infant has a right to life. For example, it might be argued that people have a right to their genetic privacy and having the newborn infant in the world that carries the genetic material of the genetic parents violates their right to genetic privacy. Put another way: the fetus does not have a right to the genetic material of her parents.
Older children are different, he claims, because they have been alive longer and have “a strong time‐relative interest to continue living.”
Räsänen is just the latest bioethicist to argue that born children should be permitted to be killed by their parents. Australian bioethicists sparked international anger after arguing in favor of “after-birth” abortion, especially for children with disabilities like Down syndrome where “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
They shockingly claimed, “Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.”
Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer has likewise argued in favor of infanticide, especially for babies with disabilities. When asked if he would kill a baby with a disability, Singer answered, “Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole.”
Missing from this conversation is the fact that once in existence, a human being has a right to his or her life, and parents’ desire for the “privacy” of their own “genetic material” should in no way override someone else’s right to continue to exist. The so-called “right to privacy” has killed far too many individuals. Once killing is accepted as being moral, through abortion or euthanasia, it will continue to grow and spread. All human beings have the right to life — but once that principle is abandoned or not recognized, there is no shortage to the horrors people will excuse.
If they were the right kind of progressive, you wouldn't disagree with them.
This begs the question “does anyone have the right to kill the ethicist”?
Joona Räsänen studied at the Gosnell School of Bioethics.
Once you start down the road of justifying murder, as in abortion, their is no logical reason to limit it to abortion. Taking a life to make your life better/easier will naturally expand to elderly, babies, too sick to bother, too many people, too poor, wrong political/ religious affiliation. Just make it legal and call it compassionate.
***legal infanticide***
This was proposed in a French magazine about thirty five years ago.
Next they’ll be telling us that Chicago’s weekly death toll is just natures way of fulfilling this eugenics model.
Those with “wrong” political leanings?
Some would say we’re going down a slippery slope, but I would say it’s a staircase with each step deliberately taken.
Christians would pick up the discarded Roman babies and raise them as Christians
Yup
Yes.
Christian and Jews respect for the lives of children resulted in very fast rises in the population of Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire.
Other Romans did not reproduce enough to maintain the population of Roman cities.
Sound familiar?
Someone should remind Joona Räsänen that, he also being human, this rule also applies to him. Just sayin'.
I had a teacher in high school who was in favor of retroactive abortions up to the age of 18. :>)
Anyone they don’t like.
This should not be a surprise. In effect, parents who have their newborn babies killed are not prosecuted. It’s a goal of the left to write that into the law.
It already happens. Some people call it a “botched” abortion. The scissors didn’t work, so dump the baby in a trash barrel.
We’re already there. This person just wants to write it into law.
I’m hoping that someone applies this reasoning to Räsänen. he will have no reason to complain.
Do we have a right to kill bioethicists? Lol!
It’s not stupidity, it’s evil. Once you have decided to pursue some evil goal, your mind will automatically find ways to rationalize it to yourself to quiet your conscience.
Believing your own rationalizations is foolish, but not stupid. We all do it, to some degree or another, whether we realize it or not. It’s just how our minds work.
The same logic applies...
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.