In completely unrelated news, it's apparently A-OK to kill babies now:
This does raise a few questions, like: Are those who advocate for a general right to infanticide in papers generally considered authoritative by the academic population "actual persons" with a "moral right to life?" Or are they vessels for a hostile philosophy who should be killed on sight? Do you believe you should accept any public recantation or public repentance from an individual who ever advocated the infanticide of children in a national publication under 'the values of a liberal society', given that his attitude toward truth is highly likely to be as shaky as his attitude toward life and public morals? Just asking questions in the spirit of public free inquiry here.
Or you could apply 'infanticide' and/or 'feticide' to them all? Really, words are so easy when you don't think of commonly-used meanings, general philosophies, legal consequences of bad behavior, consistency, or whether you might be advocating for a civilizationally destructive attitude in the general population.
The important thing is that every liberal here owes Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Paul Jennings Hill, Scott Roeder, Michael F. Griffin, and Peter James Knight quite a few apologies.
The article, 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 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”.
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”.
The important thing is that every liberal here owes Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Paul Jennings Hill, Scott Roeder, Michael F. Griffin, and Peter James Knight quite a few apologies.
Comment