“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.”
This is the logical conclusion of the abortion movement, is it not? One of the arguments used for abortion is that what is in the womb is not a person, and a person is then defined by intellect, capabilities, ability to contribute to society, etc. It can be pointed out that those same qualities can be attributed to newborns, the very ill/disabled, and the elderly. Often times abortion supporters sputter around and dodge these points, but those who conducted this study seem to acknowledge this. Instead of then concluding that abortion must end, they decide to open the pool of people eligible to be killed.
They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.
Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.
They have to KEEP their child? God forbid.
Actually, there are adoptive parents who would be more than willing to take a child with, say, Down Sydrome if the parents consider the child a "burden".
“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
Here we go with the state, and that's the problem with government control. The government can decide that a person costs too much and is not worth it. If this was legalized, they'd then advocate euthanasia I suppose. Abortion is already advocated for disabled children in the womb.
They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.
Of course they do. They love to manipulate the language so horrific things don't sound as bad as they are. That's why we have terms like "choice" and "termination".
Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.
Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled 'What is the problem with euthanasia?'
He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.
Isn't it wonderful? They are teaching students about ethics? This is what Rick Santorum was referring to when he talked about liberal indoctrination at colleges.
Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.
That's true. Peter Singer has gone before them.
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”
The irony here is staggering. People should be outraged. They are the ones who wish to kill based on their own moral certainty that they are more of a person than the unborn/babies. They are the ones who are dangerous, not the objectors.
This is evil pretending to be “science.”
There is no hope for Europe if this kind of murdering evil and horrific ugliness passes for morality and ethics in elite institutions.
Hitler might as well have won. His “ethics” seem to have been the ones finally adopted by the so-called liberal progressive victors.
These folks aren’t even original in their excuses, all they did was use the old German propaganda form the 1930’s T-4 program. The times they are a changing & not for the better.
The really sad part is that those folks who are not in favor of infanticide aren’t covered by the MSM in a honest fashion or are not allowed to speak period.
When Roe v Wade was passed 39 years ago, the wise among us said this would happen sooner or later. Here we are.
Does that mean someone can shoot them down in the road and leave the corpse for the buzzards like they could a rabid dog?
Sadly, no it does not.