Posted on 02/25/2012 1:12:19 PM PST by wagglebee
If abortion, why not infanticide? This leading question is often treated as a canard by supporters of abortion. However, it is seriously argued by two Italian utilitarians and published online in the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics this week.
Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are associated respectively with Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia, and with the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, in the UK.
They argue that both the fetus and the new-born infant are only potential persons without any interests. Therefore the interests of the persons involved with them are paramount until some indefinite time after birth. To emphasise the continuity between the two acts, they term it “after-birth abortion” rather than infanticide.
Their conclusions may shock but Guibilini and Minerva assert them very confidently. “We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.” This assertion highlights another aspect of their argument. Killing an infant after birth is not euthanasia either. In euthanasia, a doctor would be seeking the best interests of the person who dies. But in “after-birth abortion” it is the interests of people involved, not the baby.
To critical eyes, their argument will no doubt look like a slippery slope, as they are simply seeking to extend the logic of abortion to infanticide:
“If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.”
How long after birth is it “ethically permissible” to kill infants? Guibilini and Minerva leave that question up to neurologists and psychologists, but it takes at least a few weeks for the infant to become self-conscious. At that stage it moves from being a potential person to being a person, and infanticide would no longer be allowed.
With that I agree; flooding the body with chemicals to send in it weird and unnatural directions is going to have side effects.
It is also contaminating all water supplies.
The funny thing about that is that although it is true, verifiable, and fully trackable, it is still put into the "conspiracy theory" category by many.
Deliberately putting toxins into your body to prevent the consequences of deliberate immoral actions is always evil and reduces women to sexual objects to be used solely for lust.
Ask virtually any college woman is she wants to settle down and have babies in the following year or two. Most will say "no"; many will talk about postponing parenthood until their late 20's. Yet, most of them are having sex - because they want to - and have been having sex since at least the beginning of their college years. That introduces a massive disconnect: at least ten years in which they are having sex but are unwilling to accept parenthood.
I wonder where these guys stand on killing Italian utilitarians.
God is here, just ignored by many.
Our culture is set up to destroy the natural family. They remove the possibility of men to care for women and children—to provide for them like up until the 60’s when the Marxists started deconstructing our society—after Wilson and FDR’s socialization.
Marxism/socialism destroys the natural family as does immorality. Destroy morality and you destroy relationships. The proposal by cultural Marxists (Marcuse) in the 50’s and 60’s and then with the use of media in the late 60’s and beyond-—to destroy Christian Ethics (Archie Bunker/Hefner/Deep Throat) and normalize promiscuity —glorify it with beautiful stars and millions of dollars and promote heroes who are dysfunctional and immoral and you corrupt the future generation.
Without morality—you destroy Ethical behavior—and then the Marxist leaders can decide life and death and no one will blink an eye. We are like the Weimar Republic—where vile entertainment and vulgar art became widespread with the communists and people were desperate for order when Hitler showed up. But they were conditioned to look the other way at immorality—so they allowed Hitler to kill hundreds of thousand of disabled people and then of course, the Jews and (true) Christians.
Without Virtue, civil societies implode. Cultural Marxists targeted the schools and all media and got total control with Carter.
However, it is not accurate to say that there is "no comparison" between Christianity and Hinduism. There are striking dissimilarities, some of them fundamental; but on the other hand, it is Natural Law itself which points to the fact that there are important convergences. This is precisely because the One God is the Author of both the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture. It is He who has planted Natural Law in all of us -- all --- when He planted Reason and Free Will.
One can be too hasty in accepting only a few, possibly biased and necessarily incomplete, sources. What of it if Dinesh D'zouza's parents were Hindu, "so he should know" the deficiencies of Hinduism? Think what absolute rot Nancy Pelosi's children could say about Catholcism, based on their parents!!
As I understand it, in the Manu Samhita sodomy is punishable by death for males. The M.S. is no longer followed, but it is the ancient (up until the British) law book of Hinduism. Or the main one. Many state laws in India still have some edicts of the Manu Samhita. And infanticide or abortion were absolutely illegal.
It’s all online on the Sacred Texts website, which is a fascinating site.
I have a great respect for Ratzinger, too. I am very willingly his ecclesiastical subject, and we are both disciples of the Lord Jesus.
I am convinced that any rape, statutory or forcible, of a person of either sex, by a person of either sex, should incur criminal penalties which are swift, severe, and certain. Anal sodomy would be an aggravating factor.
I would not say it should be the death penalty. If long-term imprisonment could realistically protect society from such exploiters and aggressors, then prison would be justly required rather than death.
What exactly did Churchill say about Hinduism? He was spot on about the description he had for Islam.
Don't forget the ones who are selling their eggs to get a little extra cash.
As an aside (and in the interest of balance): Ask virtually any college man if he wants to settle down and have babies in the next year or two. Most will say "no"; many will talk about postponing parenthood until their late 20's. Yet, most of them are having sex - because they want to - and have been having sex since at least the beginning of their college years. That introduces a massive disconnect: at least ten years in which they are having sex but are unwilling to accept parenthood.
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.