LeviF Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) Now, I don't have access to the paper itself, so you'll have to bear with me a bit. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html 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’. They're basically saying that the killing of newborns is no morally different than abortion as it's currently practiced. "Not a slippery slope," they said... Edited February 29, 2012 by LeviF91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Now, I don't have access to the paper itself, so you'll have to bear with me a bit. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html They're basically saying that the killing of newborns is no morally different than abortion as it's currently practiced. Key point: “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 Well, by that definition, my cats are "people". In other words: !@#$ing retarded, get a better definition. Genocide has been justified by less stupid definitions of who is and isn't a "person". "Not a slippery slope," they said... Not as retarded as that, though. Holy ****... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) Not as retarded as that, though. Holy ****... That was a joke, Tommy boy That was the caption of the thread I read on a very conservative message board. Must need a smiley or something there (ah, !@#$ it, I'll leave it). I don't bother with abortion arguments anymore. Edited February 29, 2012 by LeviF91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) Now, I don't have access to the paper itself, so you'll have to bear with me a bit. http://www.telegraph...xperts-say.html They're basically saying that the killing of newborns is no morally different than abortion as it's currently practiced. "Not a slippery slope," they said... Well why stop there? Under that definition, and given the generally accepted age of reason is 7, we should be able to kill any kid that's 6 or less, as, they cannot reasonably attribute value in general to anything, never mind the the loss of their life, until then. While were at it, let's tie in some performance indicators into schooling--those that fall behind get the axe...and we can really make kindergarten hell! "Color outside the lines one more time and you will be culled!" Edited February 29, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Well why stop there? Under that definition, and given the generally accepted age of reason is 7, we should be able to kill any kid that's 6 or less, as, they cannot reasonably attribute value in general to anything, never mind the the loss of their life, until then. We'd lose a few posters under those guidelines... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 We'd lose a few posters under those guidelines... You know what else? You gotta love people, who unintentionally go out of their way....to make people like Glenn Beck right. This now legitimized something I heard him say 2 years ago, and at the time I chose to change the channel. Now, I'm wrong for doing that, and Beck is right. Thanks, Turds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Now, I don't have access to the paper itself, so you'll have to bear with me a bit. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html They're basically saying that the killing of newborns is no morally different than abortion as it's currently practiced. "Not a slippery slope," they said... All I can say about this is Wow man, just... Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 All I can say about this is Wow man, just... Wow. I would think you and DIN and a few others should be worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 FTA: ... An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down's syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing. This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down's syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. ... 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. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. ... 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. ... Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life. ... The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends, is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence. The alleged right of individuals ?............................It is difficult to comment on these two "intellectuals" without losing it. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 All I want to know is: Can I beat me 13 year old son and not get in trouble! ;) J/K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted March 1, 2012 Author Share Posted March 1, 2012 FTA: The alleged right of individuals ?............................It is difficult to comment on these two "intellectuals" without losing it. . I think it's fairly obvious that this paper was published simply for political reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 I think it's fairly obvious that this paper was published simply for political reasons. Don't be so sure. There have been an number of ethicists that have argued that people should be able to abort a child for up to 1 year of age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted March 1, 2012 Author Share Posted March 1, 2012 Don't be so sure. There have been an number of ethicists that have argued that people should be able to abort a child for up to 1 year of age. 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”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 With a quote like that from them I hope you're right. It may be the case here but other ethecists have tried making the case for afterbirth abortion before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryPinC Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Now, I don't have access to the paper itself, so you'll have to bear with me a bit. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html They're basically saying that the killing of newborns is no morally different than abortion as it's currently practiced. "Not a slippery slope," they said... Seems to me this gets back to the basic dilema about when is it ok to perform an abortion? When does this growing life earn the right to survive? Strict anti-abortionists could turn this article around and agree with the conclusions which ultimately morally validate never performing an abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) Dont be so sure, To be clear, there is no place for correspondence containing threats of physical harm or death, or for racist taunts, and those who send such threats and taunts should be dealt with appropriately by the law. But look at a few of the examples Julian Savulescu, the post's author, found at The Blaze and singled out as "abusive and threatening": These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society. I dont believe Ive ever heard anything as vile as what these people are advocating. Truly, truly scary. The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier. These are mere opinions which don't threaten anyone, yet Savulescu identified them as particularly offensive. I shudder to think what this man would do to the First Amendment in the U.S. if he were ever in a position of influence (I'm sure he also finds that offensive). This isn't about being threatened or even offended; this is about someone who believes he and his publication are among our betters wanting to be immune from criticism. . Edited March 1, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts