// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Pro-Life Activism 301 Guidelines

This area is for pro-life activists to discuss issues related to abortion. It is NOT a debate area, and it is not OK for pro-choice activists to post here.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Abortion outrage: Mums should be allowed to terminate newborns, say Australian academ

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Abortion outrage: Mums should be allowed to terminate newborns, say Australian academ

    KILLING newborn babies should be allowed if the mother wishes, Australian philosophers have argued in a prestigious journal.

    Their argument, that it is morally the same as abortion, has forced the British Medical Journal to defend its publication of their views.

    In an article that has sparked outrage around the world and elicited death threats, Monash and Melbourne University academics argue that a foetus and a newborn both lack a sense of life and aspiration.

    They argue this justifies "after-birth abortion" on the proviso it is painless as the baby is not missing out on a life it cannot contemplate.

    The doctors of philosophy argue in the BMJ publication Journal of Medical Ethics that one-third of infants with Down syndrome are not diagnosed in the womb, which means mothers of children with severe disabilities should have the chance to end a child's life after, as well as before, birth.

    However, the pair also want the principle of killing newborns extended to healthy babies, because a mother who is unwilling to care for it outweighs an infant's right to life.

    In the article, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, the authors argue: "A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human."

    They also write that the practice should be called "after-birth abortion" and not "infanticide" to "emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a foetus (on which 'abortions' in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child".

    "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. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia."

    Although the authors claim that the "moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a 'person' in a morally relevant sense", they concede it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a "person".

    The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, said the article had "elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety". He said some of comments included:

    "These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society."

    "Right now I think these two devils in human skin need to be delivered for immediate execution under their code of 'after birth abortions' they want to commit murder – that is all it is! MURDER!!!"

    "The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier"

    “Alberto Giubilini looks like a muslim so I have to agree with him that all muslims should have been aborted. If abortion fails, no life at birth – just like he wants."

    He defended the article, saying the arguments in the paper were not new. "The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide ... but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands."

    He said that "more than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society".

    https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...b5003ca8d05346

    ============
    Note: This is prolife activism, not a debate area. If you wish to debate this article, feel free to start a new thread.


    PS - what is this about infanticide being practiced in the Netherlands???


  • #2
    Pro-choicers seem to be more and more willing to bite the bullet and accept infanticide as a logical conclusion to at least some of their arguments.
    I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

    Comment


    • #3
      "Monash and Melbourne University academics argue that a foetus and a newborn both lack a sense of life and aspiration.They argue this justifies "after-birth abortion" on the proviso it is painless as the baby is not missing out on a life it cannot contemplate."

      So now they don't care if it is a human being or not, just that it can't 'contemplate life'

      That sounds a lot like the Nazi arguments for killing the mentally disabled.

      I think these evil people are the ones who fail to contemplate what life means. To destroy a life before it can even get started. Maybe they are the ones who should be put down.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
        Pro-choicers seem to be more and more willing to bite the bullet and accept infanticide as a logical conclusion to at least some of their arguments.
        My sociology professor from college (many years ago) told me on his deathbed (about 10 years ago) that the whole "overpopulation" lie was an attempt to make it easier to justify both infanticide and euthanasia - he was a lifelong liberal who became a conservative late in life.
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • #5
          Absolutely pathetic.
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            KILLING newborn babies should be allowed if the mother wishes, Australian philosophers have argued in a prestigious journal.

            Their argument, that it is morally the same as abortion, has forced the British Medical Journal to defend its publication of their views.

            In an article that has sparked outrage around the world and elicited death threats, Monash and Melbourne University academics argue that a foetus and a newborn both lack a sense of life and aspiration.

            They argue this justifies "after-birth abortion" on the proviso it is painless as the baby is not missing out on a life it cannot contemplate.

            The doctors of philosophy argue in the BMJ publication Journal of Medical Ethics that one-third of infants with Down syndrome are not diagnosed in the womb, which means mothers of children with severe disabilities should have the chance to end a child's life after, as well as before, birth.

            However, the pair also want the principle of killing newborns extended to healthy babies, because a mother who is unwilling to care for it outweighs an infant's right to life.

            In the article, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, the authors argue: "A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human."

            They also write that the practice should be called "after-birth abortion" and not "infanticide" to "emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a foetus (on which 'abortions' in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child".

            "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. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia."

            Although the authors claim that the "moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a 'person' in a morally relevant sense", they concede it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a "person".

            The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, said the article had "elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety". He said some of comments included:

            "These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society."

            "Right now I think these two devils in human skin need to be delivered for immediate execution under their code of 'after birth abortions' they want to commit murder – that is all it is! MURDER!!!"

            "The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier"

            “Alberto Giubilini looks like a muslim so I have to agree with him that all muslims should have been aborted. If abortion fails, no life at birth – just like he wants."

            He defended the article, saying the arguments in the paper were not new. "The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide ... but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands."

            He said that "more than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society".

            https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...b5003ca8d05346

            ============
            Note: This is prolife activism, not a debate area. If you wish to debate this article, feel free to start a new thread.


            PS - what is this about infanticide being practiced in the Netherlands???
            And the push for "after-birth abortions" continues

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              My sociology professor from college (many years ago) told me on his deathbed (about 10 years ago) that the whole "overpopulation" lie was an attempt to make it easier to justify both infanticide and euthanasia - he was a lifelong liberal who became a conservative late in life.
              abortion has nothing to do with overpopulation, just convenience.

              Comment


              • #8
                Sickening.
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  If I can't have them, no one can? Because that sounds like what a sick villain would say! Do those people think the ancient Greeks and Romans were right to abandon infants? They think adoption is not an option?
                  If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    abortion has nothing to do with overpopulation, just convenience.
                    The modern rise of abortion had a lot to do with eugenics, which is the overpopulation of undesirables.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I wouldn't even want to do that to a baby nonhuman mammal, so why do it to a human baby? I don't even like euthanizing a pet, so how could infanticide even be reasonable?
                      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                        I wouldn't even want to do that to a baby nonhuman mammal, so why do it to a human baby? I don't even like euthanizing a pet, so how could infanticide even be reasonable?
                        PETA thinks it's better for kittens and puppies to be euthanized than raised as pets.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          PETA thinks it's better for kittens and puppies to be euthanized than raised as pets.
                          What? If a kttten or puppy goes to a good home, it essentially thinks it has new parents for the rest of its life! Food, pets/cuddles, protection from the elements and predators(most of the time, sometimes pets sadly do get preyed on...)... now I'm almost jealous. Except I actually do have an Owner/Patron/Father! Yippee!
                          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                            What? If a kttten or puppy goes to a good home, it essentially thinks it has new parents for the rest of its life! Food, pets/cuddles, protection from the elements and predators(most of the time, sometimes pets sadly do get preyed on...)... now I'm almost jealous. Except I actually do have an Owner/Patron/Father! Yippee!
                            It's still being exploited (allegedly) by its owners.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              It's still being exploited (allegedly) by its owners.
                              Eh. Looks like a typical mutualistic relationship to me.
                              If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Christianbookworm, 02-13-2020, 09:52 PM
                              24 responses
                              4,333 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Andius
                              by Andius
                               
                              Working...
                              X