Posted on 03/02/2012 6:45:18 PM PST by sreastman
Australian Ethicists Argue the Right to Kill Babies After They’re Born
Liberty Counsel
An article entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” was recently published in the London-based "Journal of Medical Ethics," advocating that if abortion is allowed, then society also has the right to kill a newborn child. This outrageous deduction by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva takes abortion to its logical conclusion.
The abstract states: “By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
The authors are willing to admit that handicapped children are able to live happy lives but then advocate that, because of their burden on the rest of the family, the children should be able to be killed. If the test for one’s life continuing was based on not burdening someone else, everyone’s life would fail at one point or another. The question then becomes how burdensome must you be to merit your murder?
It is revolting to consider, and even more so to advocate for, the right to kill a perfectly formed, helpless newborn baby. This shocking position should stir a second look at legalized abortion. If our society is unwilling to accept the right to kill newborns, and even older children, why do we allow the murder of the unborn? The destruction of another human being - regardless of his age, his size, or his ability - should never be allowed.
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented: “Abortion opens the door to infanticide. If you can kill a child in the womb, even up to the moment before birth, then there is no logical reason to protect life after birth. A human being begins at the moment of conception and should be afforded legal protection at all stages of life. This is the only logically defensible position. It is shocking to see people advocating killing children after they are born. It is just as shocking to see people advocating killing them before they are born.”
© 2012 Liberty Counsel
You may contact Alberto Giubilini and Francesa Minerva by email to discuss their "findings":
Alberto.Giubilini@monash.edu, francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au
This country is in for a serious judgement. My litmus test with people: You Think Abortion Is OK?, Then you are not my friend. I don't want to associate with you, I don't want to hear why you think it's OK, I don't give a damn whatever else you think. I despise you. And frankly, I wish we'd just split the country right down the middle, all liberal scum sucking abortionist, environmentalist, entitlement lowlifes can have one half, those of us that value human life over the "environment" and fear God, and want the best for our children and grandchildren, those of us who work for a living, those of us who refuse to SUCK THE GOVERNMENT TIT can have the other half.
Yes, it did, and it is leading man back into the swamp.
Logical step when you’ve devalued life for 40 years.
Some people become Doctors to help people. To cure them from their ills to try to comfort the sick and aid them in recovery,
Others are in it for the $Buck$.
Abortion for convenience not only leads to infanticide, it leads to being able to kill any person for convenience. Those old, useless people at the nursing home. Just a drain on people’s incomes. Do away with all of them. Get rid of them. Hitler would have strongly approved of the “ethicists” i.e. moral ciphers quoted in this article.
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.