Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

www.telegraph.co.uk

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 so

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is beyond my belief system to even be subjected to hearing of such an article, and that these "experts" or academia are even given the platform to speak on.

I did a search and didn't find this, but if there is a thread like this, don't hesitate to send the link.

Also what can we do to really make a huge impact on our leaders. Because people elect parties often to rid them of the nightmare of the last party, and seem to have no voices.

They see no difference between a baby born and one aborted. Well many of us don't think abortions should be performed, at least in the last 2 trimesters when consciousness develops quickly.

This is outrageous.

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Also, that title, its not mine. Nor naming the few mouthpieces of evil, "experts". That is the title of the article. Just to get that out of the way. Because these guys are villians, and I shudder to think what they've abused their positions to do already in their careers.

From the link:

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.

Linked to Oxford eh, and its just considered irrelevant morals to quibble at the difference?

Something has to be done, people need to start gathering together to solve a rather serious problem facing humanity. Either random idiotic views being expressed, or a trend of escalation towards an inhumane world.

It might be easy to be upset by this "expert" opinion because it could lead to killing babies. I kind of welcome it as a way to decide the abortion issue. People lie to themselves in order to make it seem okay just removing a fetus in the womb. Maybe now abortion will be truly synonymous with baby-killing. No more moral dodging or hypocrisy.

reply to post by Unity_99


I just don't get why people think abortion is wrong. yes i do believe that your killing a living being ,but what if that person became pregnant by someone who raped her? I think everybody should have the right to have an abortion. And be happy

Eugenics is alive an well

reply to post by Unity_99

They see no difference between a baby born and one aborted. Well many of us don't think abortions should be performed, at least in the last 2 trimesters when consciousness develops quickly.

Yep. There is a group of pro-choice extremists that advocate allowing unrestricted abortion until birth. But if we allow abortion until birth, why not after birth? Its not like something fundamental changes with the baby itself during birth. Studies like this are just a logical conclusion of such twisted ideology..

This is why abortion needs to banned and illegal. It's murder.

Yeah. There are such things as going too far.

By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue 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.

jme.bmj.com...-1
I especiallly like the "including cases where the newborn is not disabled". People who deal in ethics and phlosophy in serious institutions say that. The world is going down the drain.

And they are absolutely right.

reply to post by Unity_99
Well, from a moral standpoint - at least as regards any later-term abortions, they are absolutely correct and I see not flaw in the conclusion. Now, this doesn't mean I'll advocate killing young children as I swing the other way and prefer no one gets an abortion (aside from a very narrow range of cases where both or the mother will die, and a tough decision must be made in the latter, and a few others possible), but I can't argue the conclusions otherwise.

But why stop there? Once we've established this, why not just extend the moral relativism, or at the very least apply the same line of thinking to the comatose, severely crippled, and other related ranges of people who cannot properly fend for themselves and must rely on charity and care from others to survive?

Heck, since they can't seem to do much for themselves, I'd almost feel the same way for politicians who continue to leech off us all while offering us nothing worthwhile in exchange.

(tongue only slightly in cheek)

reply to post by gecrazy


I find our laws in Canada far more balanced. They are "restricted", for the most part at least, to the first trimester, ie body forming. The brain and consciousness takes leaps and bounds from about 12 weeks on, I would say 10-12 weeks, and there is even some indication earlier from some the more recent articles.

So the earlier the better. So basically, 6 weeks is ideal.

Once consciousness is developing then there is two people at stake, not just one, and another in development, but two, with one dependent on the other.

Here in Canada, its paid for, you can go in and get it done early.

I'm not anti abortion nor pro open wide ones, and I don't consider abortions a form of birth control. But that is a very complex issue.

reply to post by Unity_99


It was a time when early humans knew better and to preserve the species and to be able to survive famine early humans just like their animal counterparts would often leave in the wild their newborns if they were not strong enough to survive, in order to protect resources.

Now we have technology, we are able to keep babies alive earlier and earlier, without the need of a nurturing womb, I will not be surprise if very soon someone will come out with a protecting womb that will grow a child.

I agree that no child born should be treated any different beside disabilities.

I believe that the article content was also misinterpreted as usual when it comes to this type of topics, the article is base on a study, that becomes an opinion, an opinion is something you read and either disregard or agree with as it suit your needs.

I guess if controversy was what the makers of the study was looking for they got it.

reply to post by Unity_99

I find our laws in Canada far more balanced. They are "restricted", for the most part at least, to the first trimester, ie body forming.

Really? Wikipedia claims otherwise:

Abortion in Canada is not limited by the law (on-demand, no time limit). While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Unity_99


This is just abhorrent Call me a “fanatic opposed to the very values of a liberal society” but imo these so called intellectuals should be strung up.

And what makes me even more angry is the fact that my hard-earned tax contributions pay these animals wages!!

Ignorance is Bliss. (take that how you want to)

reply to post by Maslo


I'm sorry, doctors tell you otherwise.

www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org...

This article does say 90% of all abortions are done early and that was how it was explained to me by my doctor, that it was first trimester only. I have 5 boys and really had to think the last one through, due to my health and heart.

So this is very odd, and wonder when that slipped in. But there are no doctors willing to do this. And that loop hole needs to be plugged.

Consciousness, determined by REM sleep and other major milestones should limit it.

And like I said Im not pro abortion, but not anti, I want women's rights respected, but also want the unborn child protected.

Originally posted by Marid Audran
And they are absolutely right.

Are you kidding? You think it should be okay to kill newborns? Under what circumstances? And what is the threshold? 3 hours old? 3 days old? 3 months old? 5 years old? My 12 year old really annoyed me yesterday--can I take him out?

I really hope you are kidding.

reply to post by marg6043


Handicapped is no excuse either. A society is judged by how it treats the least of its members. Human life is not valued at how useful a slave you are.

My earliest memories started before one month of age and remember my infancy.