Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

[WizardofOz]

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. 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”.

Source

Does anyone care to comment on the opinion of these experts? Can any pro-choices see themselves agreeing with their conclusion?

 

[musterion]

Since abortion is killing babies, that's correct.

 

[patrick jane]

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. 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”.

Source

Does anyone care to comment on the opinion of these experts? Can any pro-choices see themselves agreeing with their conclusion?

So if they don't like a baby they kill it ?

 

[TomO]

So if they don't like a baby they kill it ?

Isn't that what happens with abortion? lain:

 

[theophilus]

Where does killing stop?

Can I kill my kids once they reach 30 if they're "morally irrelevant?"

:think:

 

[ok doser]

unsurprising

it's a natural consequence of our society accepting perversion as normal


the same form of "reasoning" will eventually lead to a societal acceptance of all perversions, including pedophilia

 

[theophilus]

unsusrprising

it's a natural consequence of our society accepting perversion as normal


the same form of "reasoning" will eventually lead to a societal acceptance of all perversions, including pedophilia

When will I be able to marry my neighbors dog?

:think:

 

[WizardofOz]

Can anyone who considers themselves to be pro-choice comment?

 

[ok doser]

When will I be able to marry my neighbors dog?

:think:

I'm sure you could find a "church" to perform the ceremony

and if the state refuses you, stamp your feet and whine "discrimination" and they'll cave

 

[The Horn]

This is in no way typical of liberalism,liberalism and pro-choicers . An infant which has been born is not the same as a fetus early in a pregnancy which cannot feel pain because its brain and nervous system are not developed to the point where they can feel pain .
Actually, it was very common in ancient times for parents to abandon children they did not want to bring up , especially in ancient Rome and other parts of the world . But no liberal or pro-choicer would want this to happen to a born infant .
The overwhelming majority of abortions which happen in America are far too early in a pregnancy for it to be able to feel any pain . so all the complaints about how horrible it is for abortions to happen because of fetal pain are bogus . Late term abortions happen because of serious medical emergencies. Women don't just capriciously decide to have abortions at the last minute .

 

[ok doser]

This is in no way typical of liberalism,liberalism and pro-choicers . An infant which has been born is not the same as a fetus early in a pregnancy which cannot feel pain because its brain and nervous system are not developed to the point where they can feel pain .
Actually, it was very common in ancient times for parents to abandon children they did not want to bring up , especially in ancient Rome and other parts of the world . But no liberal or pro-choicer would want this to happen to a born infant .
The overwhelming majority of abortions which happen in America are far too early in a pregnancy for it to be able to feel any pain . so all the complaints about how horrible it is for abortions to happen because of fetal pain are bogus . Late term abortions happen because of serious medical emergencies. Women don't just capriciously decide to have abortions at the last minute .

congratulations on arguing against a whole bunch of points that were never raised :thumb:


have a cookie

 

[glassjester]

This is in no way typical of liberalism,liberalism and pro-choicers . An infant which has been born is not the same as a fetus early in a pregnancy which cannot feel pain because its brain and nervous system are not developed to the point where they can feel pain .
Actually, it was very common in ancient times for parents to abandon children they did not want to bring up , especially in ancient Rome and other parts of the world . But no liberal or pro-choicer would want this to happen to a born infant .
The overwhelming majority of abortions which happen in America are far too early in a pregnancy for it to be able to feel any pain . so all the complaints about how horrible it is for abortions to happen because of fetal pain are bogus . Late term abortions happen because of serious medical emergencies. Women don't just capriciously decide to have abortions at the last minute .

So the physical pain of the victim is what makes murder wrong?

If you kill someone painlessly, it's perfectly acceptable?

 

[musterion]

Paging Peter Singer...