Killing off the elderly is going to be a breeze for them. We have known from the beginning that this is the plan of the terrorist @ 1600.
"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’.
Now, my hunch is that for the vast majority of the civilized — and, frankly, uncivilized — world, the only thing these authors have demonstrated is their own “moral irrelevance.”....................
Hitler would be proud.
>Editor Julian Savulescu also criticizes what he calls the >“hate speech” directed at the authors of the article, >arguing that the public’s response to the piece shows that >“proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat >from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal >society.”
He misunderstands. His side wants to kill helpless infants and helpless elderly people. So what is wrong with wanting to kill the adult killers? They can at least try to defend themselves. Or is helplessness a good enough reason to murder?
Maybe he just wants to kill things that can’t fight back, like stomping on kittens and puppies, because it makes him fell like a “real man”.
This is the stuff that makes me really want to hurt someone. Just how non chalantly they say things, no emotion or empathy. I work in the medical field and the hypocratic oath is to never harm patients, well I guess a living breathing infant is not a person any more.. Oh god has a really special place for these bastards.
This is the stuff that makes me really want to hurt someone. Just how non chalantly they say things, no emotion or empathy. I work in the medical field and the hypocratic oath is to never harm patients, well I guess a living breathing infant is not a person any more.. Oh god has a really special place for these bastards.
It's appalling to think about how many sacrificed so much in an effort to drive the nazis out of Holland so that, in less than a single lifetime, the liberated population could reinstitute the very same policies.
But it is not practiced in the 190 other countries of the world.
marker
Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother
Portraying mothers as victims leads DIRECTLY to justification of abortion.
However, the basis on which the authors consider all of these to be permissible is the crux of the matter. That is simply that the life of the human individual involved is entirely conditional on the effect that life has on the somewhat nebulous collective termed "society" - that (1) there is some sort of consensus as to what benefits society, and (2) that outside that consensus the existence of the individual may be termed invalid, and (3) proceeding on this basis, the individual's life is forfeit. It is these premises that are the proper arena for "ethicists". The authors have dodged these questions as somehow given.
To scream "Nazi!" is to degrade the argument into invective, but in fact this is precisely the behavior on the part of the Nazis that led to the death camps: that some sort of consensus involving the good of the whole - racial purity if one can still take that ludicrous assertion seriously - justified the extermination of individuals whose existence impeded the collective good. If there is a single ethical lesson to be drawn from the incredible bloodshed that was the mid-20th century, surely it must be that this line of reasoning leads to actions that are grotesquely immoral and consequences that are detrimental to both individual and collective. This isn't ethical theory, it's praxis. It's a simple observation of where the measure of individual existence in terms of the good of the collective leads. It leads to hell for both.
By “the authors” I meant Alberto Giubilin and Francesca Minerva, not the authors of this piece. Sloppy usage for which I apologize.
I had to read the article to make sure this wasn't satire.
Because actual ethics are, y'know, impractical.