Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Bioethicists Argue For Post-Birth Abortions


BG45

Recommended Posts

[b] [url="http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/weird/Killing-Newborn-Babies-141014423.html"]Bioethicists Argue for "After-Birth Abortion"[/url][/b]

[b] [url="http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/weird/Killing-Newborn-Babies-141014423.html"]They wrote that killing newborns is logically sound[/url][/b]

[quote]
Two Oxford bioethicists caused an outcry among pro-lifers when they argued that “after-birth abortion” — killing a newborn baby — is morally sound and should be made legal.
Alberto Giubilini from the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva from Melbourne University wrote in the [url="http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full?sid=3f012def-bd12-4d73-9db4-8392c807ee94"]Journal of Medical Ethics[/url] that fetuses and newborns “do not have the same moral status as actual persons.”

The pair argue say that killing a baby should be “permissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled,” adding that “the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant.”

The paper posits that the act wouldn’t be categorized as infanticide, or euthanasia — since the killing wouldn't necessarily be in the newborn's best interest.

All Party Paliamentary Pro-Life Group has decried the controversial article.

The charity’s co-chairman, Lord Alton, told the Catholic Herald, “That the Journal of Medical Ethics should give space to such a proposition illustrates not a slippery slope, but the quagmire into which medical ethics and our wider society have been sucked.“

Julian Savulescu, the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, defended the article on the [url="http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/02/28/liberals-are-disgusting-in-defence-of-the-publication-of-after-birth-abortion/"]British Medical Journal blog[/url], claiming that similar arguments have been made in academic literature in the past.

“Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well-reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises,” he said.

As for those who disagree, Savulescu said the journal will be “very willing” to consider opposing papers for publication.[/quote]

I'm utterly unsurprised sadly...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it makes sense right? whats the difference between in the infant in the womb and out of the womb? certainly the location of the infant does not give it rights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archaeology cat

The thing is, if you define personhood as being separate from one's humanity, then such is rather logical. :( Lord, have mercy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The pair argue say [sic] that killing a baby should be 'permissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled,” adding that “the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant.'”

Um. What the frick?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up next - required abortions, both pre- and post-partum - required in Catholic hospitals, paid for by Catholic employers.

Anybody wanna make a pinkie bet on it happening in Obama's second term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brother Adam

This is not the first time this has been brought up. It is why the Catholic view of the human person is singularly unique and necessary to fight against a dystopian Orwellian existience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope not satire, this is a Telegraph piece, summarizing the findings of a journal article from a respected medical journal. I'm with Sixpence, I wasn't surprised, after all, if the unborn child has a heartbeat and no rights, why should the child outside of the womb? It still sickens me to no end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full?sid=3f012def-bd12-4d73-9db4-8392c807ee94

The actual article published.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I [i]mean[/i]... after all... if your baby is born deaf or something, or turns out to be a girl when you wanted a boy, or has great big cauliflower ears or something...

you couldn't reasonably expect any right-thinking parents to keep it, could you?


I mean... children do come with an eighteen-year warranty and a money-back guarantee, don't they?








Don't they?

Nota Bene: This is badly written satire, so no one has the right to be offended, okay?

Edited by Luigi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...