Posted on 02/27/2012 5:18:33 PM PST by Lazlo in PA
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] 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.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.
The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Murder.
I had a dog once that ate it’s puppies.I euthanised her.
A human being who murders an infant deserves no less.
That person is not a human he/she is a monster.
This is a classic example of a false-premise argument. If one accepts that abortion of a fetus is allowable then it logically follows that "after-birth abortions" are as well. If one accepts that argument then murder should be ethical and legal at any age, and I would recommend that the procedure first be carried out on the Australian "ethicists."
As these “ethicists†are paid by universities it would be fair to say that the state provides for their care. Further it could be argued that this places an unbearable burden on society as a whole as these individuals are nothing but a drain to the very society that they advocate killing, at least in part. Logically it makes more sense to practice abortions on the “ethicists” than on innocent children.
Why not allow mothers to kill their children at any age? After all, it is a woman's right to choose whether her child lives.
I have read our PINO’s words about supporting the murder of babies who survive abortion, but do you have any link to a video of him saying the words? I need that for my archive when people refuse to believe me when I tell them about horrible things their beloved Barry has said.
Ethicists in Australia can be killed any time within 100 years of their birth because they are non-persons.
I can’t even make a coherent comment on this. I am just so saddened and disgusted that I have no words for these self-name experts who think they are gods.
Obama caught on tape arguing against giving medical attention to aborted babiesThey have audios of all debates in the Illinois Senate, but these are only kept for a limited period. I seem to remember in 2008 listening to the portion of the recording in which Obama talks about "if there is movement" by the poor wretched creature who wasn't quite aborted. This part of the recording is no longer available, and maybe I'm just imagining it. The recordings at Stanek's site are very potent though, and track with the official transcripts.
If you want to read the whole article it is available on line if you have access to ProQuest. I have access though the Los Angeles Public Library Database system which is available to all library card holders. Major libraries and libraries in large cities should have access to ProQuest for their patrons.
the eugenics movement was started in the US by the Progressives and it was all the rage with the intelligencia. That’s where we got the forced sterilzation efforts and what Margaret Sanger wanted to do to control the birth of “undesireables” when she founded the group that’s the forerunner of Planned Parenthood. Who were the undesireables: the lower class of course, mental defectives and Negros. That’s why the abortion clinics were built in African-American neighborhoods.
You should read about the Progressives and their eugenics movement. It’s scary, but what these two ethicist wrote fits right in and isn’t anything new other than as the Journal points out in it’s defense of publishing the article that these two included the convience of the family. They do of course mention the good of the society.
If you want to read it get access to ProQuest and search the name of the article. It can be read on line for no charge. I had access to ProQuest via the LA Public Library and my library card.
What do you mean tomorrow those arguements are already being made by ethicists like Singer and others in the Netherlands.
The magazine is seeking well reasoned responses to the article. It would be kind of fun to copy their style and write what you’re suggesting and submit it for publication to the Journal of Medial Ethics. If you have ProQuest available though your library you can get the entire article.
Not a direct quote, but Jill Stanek`s 2008 interview about her plea in 2004 to the Illinois Senate on a proposed bill to require doctors to give medical aid and prevent such murder was chilling.
Stanek related in a 2008 interview how most legislators were taken aback by her description of what was happening at Christ Hospital in Chicago, i.e., the dumping into laundry bins of live children who`d survived a certain type of abortion. During her speech to the IL Senate, the only one to have absolutely no reaction... the one who sat with cold, stony soullessness ... was Obama. He was completely unmoved by the whole matter.
And he voted to keep the current law in place, allowing those children to continue to be killed in that manner. Should be able find more by Googling “Stanek”, “Obama”, and “Christ Hospital.”
BTW... ironic naming of that hospital, no? The Jesus Christ I follow LOVES children.
More proof that slopes are slippery.
Thank you - yes, the name of that hospital needs to be changed to the Barry Soetoro Memorial Hospital. Chilling indeed how this man can talk of killing a living child because it is the “intent of the mother” for the baby to be dead. I believe in all my heart that he learned this from his mother, who didn’t have easy access to abortion as a pregnant teen in Seattle back in 1960. No one should be so inconvenienced these days.
This is the only video I know of that has the audio of some of those remarks. It’s at the Real Choice blogspot (a vital website to share with anyone who tells you there is such a thing as a “safe” abortion).
http://www.jillstanek.com/?s=granny+grump
Thank you for this information. I will check it out.
And so our Culture of Death continues it’s crazy slide down the slippery-slope to the very depths of Evil itself...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.