The Ethics of Infanticide

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

nathan1977

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
3,446
Location
Strong Badia
Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say - Telegraph

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.

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’. "

The actual study is available here:
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
 
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”.

Others may disagree with me on this, but I feel disgusted when people say newborns are not actual persons.

Just because their brains are not fully developed does not mean they're not people. Our brains supposedly don't finish developing until we're in our early 20s. Does that mean young adults, teens and children are not people, and therefore have no rights?

These kinds of beliefs are far too radical to me, and also far too dangerous.
 
I read this this morning as well. Very dangerous and irresponsible thing to publish, I think. Here's what the author had to say:

Dr Minerva said she had notified police about the death threats and feared for her safety.
''This was a theoretical and academic article,'' she said.
''I didn't mean to change any laws. I'm not in favour of infanticide. I'm just using logical arguments.''
The paper had been taken out of context, she said. It was intended for an academic community.
''This debate is not new. The debate has been going on for 30 years,'' she said. ''I don't think people outside bioethics should learn anything from this paper. I've received hundreds of emails saying, 'You should die'.''


This disturbed me the most:

Avoiding the term ''infanticide'', the pair say ''after-birth abortion'' should be permitted when disabilities, such as Down syndrome, are not detected during pregnancy, or if economic or psychological circumstances change and ''taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone''.

Sends a shiver down my spine.
 
I'm pro-choice, but if you are going to have an abortion you'd do it before, y'know, the kid's born, right?

To suggest it's alright to kill the infant because it has a disease/order that wasn't picked up during pregnancy is disgusting.
 
Normally ethicists use the term non-voluntary euthanasia to refer to what these ethicists are arguing for. Not sure why these particular authors chose to do otherwise. It's rather like calling smothering someone to death "withdrawal of life support."
 
Last edited:
In Michigan you can anonymously surrender a newborn within 72 hours of birth to any emergency services provider (hospital, fire station....). You get 28 days to change your mind. Seems like a fair compromise to me.
 
I'm pro-choice, but if you are going to have an abortion you'd do it before, y'know, the kid's born, right?

To suggest it's alright to kill the infant because it has a disease/order that wasn't picked up during pregnancy is disgusting.

This.

That article. Yeah. Ummmmmmmmmmm. NO. Just no. Truly disturbing on so many levels.
 
That has literally nothing to do with what we are talking about. Can he be suspended for taking this thread way off topic?
 
It's best to just ignore him. As he's proven in the Personhood Amendments thread, he's great at making embarrassingly irrelevant posts and then not having the balls to address them when he's called on it
 
That has literally nothing to do with what we are talking about. Can he be suspended for taking this thread way off topic?

Just ignore him. He's not worth the arguments or the hassle.
 
the iron horse said:

How coy of you.

The instances in FYM where you've been questioned, challenged and/or "called" on something you've posted, and to which you either ignored the responses entirely or didn't address the specific issue, are simply too numerous to list here.

It would be great if you could actually take part in the ongoing discussion, rather than simply interject your own tangentially related thought/quote/link without any explanation or inclination to expand on it when asked.
 
How coy of you.

The instances in FYM where you've been questioned, challenged and/or "called" on something you've posted, and to which you either ignored the responses entirely or didn't address the specific issue, are simply too numerous to list here.

It would be great if you could actually take part in the ongoing discussion, rather than simply interject your own tangentially related thought/quote/link without any explanation or inclination to expand on it when asked.


Ask a question. What would you like to dicuss?
 
Getting back on topic...

It's these people such as Francesca Minerva who give ammunition to the conservatives, who believe all liberals think like her. I remember Glenn Beck mentioned people like her on his show (Note: I never had watched his show; my parents are big fans of him. Try not to feel sorry for me).
 
I'm pro-choice, but if you are going to have an abortion you'd do it before, y'know, the kid's born, right?

To suggest it's alright to kill the infant because it has a disease/order that wasn't picked up during pregnancy is disgusting.

I fail to see how a few less weeks of gestation or the failure to traverse the few inches of the birth canal makes a 3rd-term Intact Dilation and Extraction (i.e., partial-birth abortion) of a viable fetus any less a case of infanticide.

I wonder if you agree with that given most pro-choice Americans and legislatures actually do. A common sense, moral and medically informed restriction on abortion that all but the slippery-slope abortion zealots can agree on.
 
Is someone here arguing for 3rd term abortions or are you creating rebuttals for non arguments?
 
I don't really know enough about the debate to comment. I'm not a woman, I'll never be pregnant. It's just my opinion that women should have a choice, and that decision shouldn't be made for them by politicians thousands of miles away whom they've never met.
 
Is someone here arguing for 3rd term abortions or are you creating rebuttals for non arguments?

Look at the quote I'm referring to. "before, y'know, the kid's born" would include the 3rd term. I was asking for clarification.

As I stated, I think there is more common-ground agreement when people really think about this issue than the vocal extremists on both sides will have us believe. I'd like to prove that.
 
Back
Top Bottom