Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say...

RobeSoup&Tears

Get 'em while they're hot
Aug 16, 2005
22,775
1,569
578
Riverdale, New York
#1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.



The Article.. http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full.pdf+html

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’.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#2
I see no potential for this thread to go in a negative direction.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
141,468
49,794
644
#3
Awww!! Baby five finger death punch!
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#4
I've been advocating Post Birth Abortions for years
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,774
18,522
513
Kingdom of Charis
#6
Great proof of why ivory tower ethics are retarded.

By the way, this is already sorta legal in the Netherlands. At least for terminally ill newborns.
 

OilyJillFart

Well-Lubed Member
Sep 26, 2008
2,858
1,119
433
#7
They aren't technically people until language development, might as well use that as the cutoff point..
 

RobeSoup&Tears

Get 'em while they're hot
Aug 16, 2005
22,775
1,569
578
Riverdale, New York
#10

lockjaaaaww

All out of Bubble Gum.
Apr 26, 2008
15,454
75
188
bohemia, ny
#12
This only makes me like Abortion even more. Now Dead Babies and abortion jokes can finally merge into one category.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#14
Hate to launch into a long post after not posting much lately, but I read that horseshit, and I have an opinion on it. So here it is.

Their error is on what rights are and where they come from. They write:
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’. 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 means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons.
If that were true, Bill Gates and a bacteria have the same rights, because they both aim to live. Values are those things that further your goals, so death is the loss of the ultimate value for both.

But it's not. First off, rights are not "freedom from harm", as they claim, they are the freedom to act (specifically, the freedom to act without violating the rights of others - this caveat will become relevant in a second). And the reason for rights is the possession of a rational faculty. It gives us the ability to choose and act on our choices. That's the difference between humans and animals. Humans can exercise rights, animals can't. A goat wouldn't have any use for rights, because it can't choose or act on choices. It acts on instinct alone. That's its only choice.

Even a seemingly helpless newborn can exercise its rights, with the aid of a willing adult. If a newborn starts crying within earshot of a fucking nun (or any other species of dogooder), it will get food and be able to continue its rational development (all through which he is exercising some of his rights, even if without significant physical action or an ability to communicate). If someone kills it, that would in fact be a violation of a set of rights he is actively engaged in exercising.

A fetus is not an instinct driven goat either. If its mother is willingly sheltering it within herself, and if it's past the point where his sensory and perception capacities are developed enough, then it's settled: carving it out and killing it against its mother's wishes is a violation of not only the mother's rights, but its right to life. It's murder. On the other hand, if the mother doesn't want the pregnancy, then the fetus does not have a willing adult to help it exercise its rights. And it has no right to anything, if it's at the expense of another person's rights (in this case, the mother's), so abortion should be legal. Including late term abortion.

P.S. That same flawed definition of rights (freedom from harm rather than freedom to act) is used to rationalize the welfare state. If you have a right to be free from harm, then you have the right to be free from famine, the elements, discomfort, etc. In other words, you have the right to food, a house, comfort, etc.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#15
Even a seemingly helpless newborn can exercise its rights, with the aid of a willing adult. If a newborn starts crying within earshot of a fucking nun (or any other species of dogooder), it will get food and be able to continue its rational development (all through which he is exercising some of his rights, even if without significant physical action or an ability to communicate).
How if that not the same instinctive drive that a goat would possess?
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#16
How if that not the same instinctive drive that a goat would possess?
I wasn't referring to the crying as an example of a baby exercising rights (although I think crying is an emotional reaction, not instinctive, I don't know enough about it to make definitive claims).

I meant that the baby is already processing information, and forming basic abstractions (probably even in the womb, but definitely once it is born). That process is volitional: choices are being made. If you couple that with an ability to live without relying on the use of force against another rational being, that is how I (and many others, who believe in the concept of "natural rights"), define the act of exercising one's rights. That is, in essence, not different from how an adult is making choices.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,127
12,916
373
Atlanta, GA
#17
I wasn't referring to the crying as an example of a baby exercising rights (although I think crying is an emotional reaction, not instinctive, I don't know enough about it to make definitive claims).

I meant that the baby is already processing information, and forming basic abstractions (probably even in the womb, but definitely once it is born). That process is volitional: choices are being made. If you couple that with an ability to live without relying on the use of force against another rational being, that is how I (and many others, who believe in the concept of "natural rights"), define the act of exercising one's rights. That is, in essence, not different from how an adult is making choices.
Does a baby have it's own credit card? No? Didn't think so. Kill it.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#18
I wasn't referring to the crying as an example of a baby exercising rights (although I think crying is an emotional reaction, not instinctive, I don't know enough about it to make definitive claims).
I think a baby's crying is instinctive. It serves a lot of purposes. Clears fluid out of the lungs at birth, establishes a bond with the mother, etc.

I meant that the baby is already processing information, and forming basic abstractions (probably even in the womb, but definitely once it is born).
The goat is doing the exact same thing. We're all animals. We just have the ability for more abstract thought, a propensity for being able to use tools, and a stronger language capability. None of which is present in an infant.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,127
12,916
373
Atlanta, GA
#20
That's harsh. I think we should just wait until we can determine their sexual orientation. :action-sm
"A heterosexual baby? That's a devalued currency, ma'am."

"Off the cliff with it, then?"

"Pretty much."
 
Nov 8, 2005
1,053
3
368
Below Canada
#21
wish i new about this when i was younger. would saved money on a few abortions. DIY post birth abortions would definitely be cheaper.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#22
Fuck that, until they bring home a paycheck.
Would be a good way to eliminate democrat voters.

I'm just going to assume this is a bunch of attention whore "researchers" that want more funding from the same crowd that claims that the world is overpopulated. The sad thing is, a lot of people would actually support the idea of murdering babies. And not just for the sake of being "shocking" like we see here in every thread like this.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
41,706
9,162
768
#25
i see nothing wrong with allowing the parents of a severely disabled baby to have it put down at birth,