• Announcements

    • Benny

      Forums Restructured   09/22/2016

      A lot of less active forums have been removed and consolidated with larger forums.  SEC Recruiting and Official Game Threads have been merged into SEC Football Talk.  All SEC Social Groups have been moved under their respective team forums. All other Social Groups have been merged into the Water Fountain. Other less active off-topic forums such as Think Tank, SciFi, Gaming, etc, have been merged into the Water Fountain.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Darth Vader

Abortion Now Being Sited As Justification to Kill Newborn Babies

191 posts in this topic

I'm simply speachless...

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

new_baby_2154044b.jpg

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”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.

Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled 'What is the problem with euthanasia?'

He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.

Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.

What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.

Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary's University College, said: "If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say 'it's doesn't matter, she can get another one,' is that what we want to happen?

"What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new."

Referring to the term "after-birth abortion", Dr Stammers added: "This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm simply speachless...

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

Somebody gets it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy was right about one thing. The idea of killing people because it was merciful or they were flawed or they could not contribute to society has been around for a long time. In fact it has actually been put in place as official state policy once in the past century....

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/euthanasia.htm

The end result was the Holocaust. They used the same exact logic and reasoning listed above to start it all.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy was right about one thing. The idea of killing people because it was merciful or they were flawed or they could not contribute to society has been around for a long time. In fact it has actually been put in place as official state policy once in the past century....

http://www.historypl.../euthanasia.htm

The end result was the Holocaust. They used the same exact logic and reasoning listed above to start it all.

True Vader,some history should never be forgotten.Good post.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The decline of morality continues.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NextYear is loving the prospects of this new kill babies thing!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......................... uh. ..................

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of you give a crap. It's a political football

I am beyond insulted that you are so crass as to suppose to know how I feel about this issue. For the record, I do care. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that if you can read that article without the blood running cold in your veins then you have lost all semblance of the humanity that God instilled in us all. This is not just politics or some right versus left pissing match that prevail on this site during the off season. This is members of the staff of one of the most prestigious universities in the Western World openly calling for the murder of newborn babies. How can you be so cavalier about this? Is this some sort of joke to you?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am beyond insulted that you are so crass as to suppose to know how I feel about this issue

You'll get over it. Conservative policy shows that Righties have nothing but contempt for the mother, and they damn sure don't want to be burdened with the responsibilities of the child after it is born, so their righteous indignation rings hollow

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zartan...Conservatives are givers, Liberals are givers of other peoples money.

You are so clueless of what really happens in society it's almost pathetic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and BTW...when it comes down to mothers and innocent unborn babies?!?! You're 100% correct, I could give a s--t about what the mother thinks when it comes to abortion. Deal with it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zartan...Conservatives are givers, Liberals are givers of other peoples money.

You are so clueless of what really happens in society it's almost pathetic.

Because I don't have my opinions dictated to me by a fat, drug-addled retard on the radio every day?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll get over it. Conservative policy shows that Righties have nothing but contempt for the mother, and they damn sure don't want to be burdened with the responsibilities of the child after it is born, so their righteous indignation rings hollow

Do you really believe half the bile you spew? Heaven forbid someone having to be responsible for their own child.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmm...no. Because you are void of morality.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and BTW...when it comes down to mothers and innocent unborn babies?!?! You're 100% correct, I could give a s--t about what the mother thinks when it comes to abortion. Deal with it.

And I could care less about what your phony savior and his book of ancient Jewish superstition has to say about anything, either. Deal with it

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I don't have my opinions dictated to me by a fat, drug-addled retard on the radio every day?

Because every libertarian, right wing or whatever type of conservative listens to Rush Limbaugh just like every left oriented person watches/listens to Keith Olbermann.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I could care less about what your phony savior and his book of ancient Jewish superstition has to say about anything, either. Deal with it

That's YOUR problem, not mine. But one day you will regret your stance on life after death.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really believe half the bile you spew? Heaven forbid someone having to be responsible for their own child.

lanekiffin.gif that! You wanna mandate pro-life, put your money where your mouth is...otherwise your hypocritical pieces of crap using dead babies to make political points.

Either you really care or you don't...you decide

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll get over it. Conservative policy shows that Righties have nothing but contempt for the mother, and they damn sure don't want to be burdened with the responsibilities of the child after it is born

Hence why I didn't have it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.