By wmw_admin on March 2, 2012
Stephen Adams – Telegraph.co.uk March 1, 2012
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.”
Pandora’s Box ?
Follow the Money ?
I always chuckle at the “Liberal Society” label. It implies democracy and freedom.It is, in fact, the exact opposite. It is a slooow noose placed around each of our necks..a leash….. or worse.
Do you get the feeling of a big dog with sharp teeth nipping at your heels…or worse. I do.
What do I mean ?
There are certain things that define us as people or human beings aka ie that the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest aren’t in our spiritual programming .
Lets say the average person live to approx. 80 years old.
It is often said life is a circle. or more of a humorous note…..” We start off in diapers….. and may end up in diapers”.
A baby can be as helpless and vulnerable as an 80 year old senior citizen.
Thus …..Is anything in a diaper “vulnerable” ?
That’s kinda my point.
Some things in life are meant to be Black and White…NO gray area.
I am old enough to recall when abortion was legalized. What does that actually mean? It means (2) things.
NOTE: Golden Rule : Anything GOVT DOES is done for (2) purposes and often at (2) diametrically opposed reasons.
At one level, it is meant to make the population believe that the Gov’t is democratic , and into civil liberties, and preventing discrimination. (aka sugar coated Bullshit)
At the other level, is the REAL agenda.
Regardless of one’s beliefs, Pro or Con…..the REAL issue is the Gov’t agenda .
Abortion goes back into the early 1900′s. The revoking of slavery concerned the Elite. These free slaves might actually want to live like the rest of the citizens, have families and thus threaten the power base. So Margaret Sanger promoted what was a” soft form” of Eugenics which we know today as Planned Parenthood.
What is Planned Parenthood ……really ?
It is a corrupt money making machine.
It claims to educate people to be responsible, when in fact it wishes to groom sexual experimentation
If an “accident” happens during such experimentation , no problem….lots of Doctor$ to cure you what ail$ you .
As noted in previous posts the Roots of Planned Parenthood were in keeping the post slavery black population in check. It has succeeded as Blacks have the highest % rate of abortions per racial group. The US has lost approx. 50 million potential citizens since abortion was legalized. Does this make any sense….you need a birth rate of at minimum 1.8 per couple to sustain….yet open the doors to immigration ?
Oh I get it….. the old double dip….gain from BOTH agendas. Lots of work =$$$ for the ve$ted intere$t$.
When abortion was legalized, they law established certain chronological points at which a fetus is and isn’t a viable human. If memory serves me correctly, abortion was originally relegated to the first 3 months in -utero.
However, when I looked into this issue recently, I see that this has been ratcheted up to the point that if the mother has actually given birth, the baby can be left in a closet or even dumped into a toilet to die, the UPDATED version is that the baby is not human unless it lives a certain point after birth.
What kind of message is that ?
The fetus has passed all the historical hurdles for 9 months , the umbilical cord is cut , yet it is not human? Would you do that an animal?
In essence, I hate to say it, but as the traditional “Black and White” Morals and Ethics are attacked by the ever slippery -slope of relativity and subjectivity, NONE of us are safe.
Its the usual ”WHO is N-E-X-T” ? Some group inevitably plays God and determines who the useless eaters are.
Obamacare is not universal health care its a trap, it is all about ” culling the herd”.
We were out recently and I noticed a person in a wheelchair approx 50 years old. He had no legs, no right arm and a stump of a left arm. My guess is a Thalidomide victim. I thought, my God, what an inspiration, what a life they must have had yet persevered. In modern times would he even be alive ….or allowed to live?
So while we are all asleep, and letting the Elite manipulate us, Trojan Horse us with the (i)propaganda and (ii) the real agenda, and ultimately divide and conquer us, anyone of us could be ” the next Abortion”…the womb has been slowly but surely made irrelevant .
Once everything once held sacred has been made relative and subjective, it becomes very primal , with every man and women for themselves.