Yeah! That's your money, people!
Posted on 09/05/2018 6:54:24 AM PDT by EdnaMode
The field of bioethics seems to be less and less concerned about what is considered ethical in medicine, and more and more concerned with justifying a culture of death. It’s no longer enough for abortion to be legal; bioethicists are increasingly calling for the murder of born infants to be permitted. And though these calls for legal infanticide are always met with outrage, they continue to come.
Finnish bioethicist Joona Räsänen has argued in the medical journal Bioethics that pro-life arguments against infanticide “are not convincing” and “cannot show infanticide to be immoral.” While Räsänen has not argued for infanticide to be legal — yet — he does argue that parents might have the moral right to kill their born children.
[T]here might be an argument that gives, for example, the genetic parents a right to kill (or leave to die) their newborn infant even if the infant has a right to life. For example, it might be argued that people have a right to their genetic privacy and having the newborn infant in the world that carries the genetic material of the genetic parents violates their right to genetic privacy. Put another way: the fetus does not have a right to the genetic material of her parents.
Older children are different, he claims, because they have been alive longer and have “a strong time‐relative interest to continue living.”
Räsänen is just the latest bioethicist to argue that born children should be permitted to be killed by their parents. Australian bioethicists sparked international anger after arguing in favor of “after-birth” abortion, especially for children with disabilities like Down syndrome where “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
They shockingly claimed, “Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.”
Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer has likewise argued in favor of infanticide, especially for babies with disabilities. When asked if he would kill a baby with a disability, Singer answered, “Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole.”
Missing from this conversation is the fact that once in existence, a human being has a right to his or her life, and parents’ desire for the “privacy” of their own “genetic material” should in no way override someone else’s right to continue to exist. The so-called “right to privacy” has killed far too many individuals. Once killing is accepted as being moral, through abortion or euthanasia, it will continue to grow and spread. All human beings have the right to life — but once that principle is abandoned or not recognized, there is no shortage to the horrors people will excuse.
Ping.
"Untermenschen"? "Lebens unwertes leben"?
It didn't sound any better in the original German ...
Yeah! That's your money, people!
The slippery slope is steep and very slippery.
Even highly educated people can be stupid beyond belief. Einstein was a socialist who thought Lenin was a great man.
“...being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life...”
One could apply that to joona.
“Joona Räsänen, step right up.”
I believe the first groups ‘euthanized’ were called “useless eaters.”
But, after that, it is going to be Whites.
Watch how "cost controls" are imposed on those receiving GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED "healthcare".
You won't have to worry about being treated for your illness, because they won't pay for the tests necessary for a diagnosis.
Shades of Taras Bulba.
>>For example, it might be argued that people have a right to their genetic privacy and having the newborn infant in the world that carries the genetic material of the genetic parents violates their right to genetic privacy.
If they wanted that privacy, they should not have “released” their genetic material at conception.
This was fully accepted in pagan Rome and around the world. Christianity changed it.
Sounds like someone has been thumbing through an old Aktion T4 instruction manual.
Third trimester, fourth trimester. Really, what difference does it make? /s
Tagline
Anyone you disagree with as long as they aren’t a progressive.
“Bio-Ethicist” is kind of like “Social Justice”.
The modifier kills the meaning of the word.
The last thing a bio-ethicist is about is ethics.
Well, the Spartans waited to see if the baby was at least six pounds. Those that didn’t make the weight went over the cliff. Maybe we should bring that back? Just a thought for the barbaric(that’s you Planed Parenthood) among us.
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.