Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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, 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’.
“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.”
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.
The authors therefore concluded 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”.
They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.
Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.
“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.
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”.
Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.
Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled 'What is the problem with euthanasia?'
He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.
Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.
What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.
While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “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.”
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”
He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.
Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary's University College, said: "If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say 'it's doesn't matter, she can get another one,' is that what we want to happen?
"What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new."
Referring to the term "after-birth abortion", Dr Stammers added: "This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide."
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:41 pm
On the bright side
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:42 pm Posts: 17495 Location: Surfside Beach, SC Gender: Male
So, for arguments' sake, what is the "moral" cutoff? Is a 4 month old still not a person and can be "aborted" I'm not defending any position, just raising a question.
_________________ I remember thinking, "that's really gay". -- Cameronia
So, for arguments' sake, what is the "moral" cutoff? Is a 4 month old still not a person and can be "aborted" I'm not defending any position, just raising a question.
It's probably as ambiguous as deciding which trimester abortion is ok and when is it not.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:04 pm
AnalLog
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
i will forever go by brain function. if it decides death, than it decides life too.
i'll attempt to explain:
take the horrible scenario that played out in Ohio this week. that kid shot 5 peers and as the news of whether the victims were injured or dead came out the deciding information was brain function. they were pronounced brain dead, and this messed up kid became a multi-murderer. therefore, if a certain amount of brain function determines whether a person is alive or dead, the same requirement should be used for a fetus. anything done before this point is permitted, anything after it is killing a person (there may still be times when abortion would save a pregnant woman's life, but i wouldn't think that that's up for debate).
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:04 pm
Unthought Known
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm Posts: 9282 Location: Atlanta Gender: Male
Rebar wrote:
So, for arguments' sake, what is the "moral" cutoff? Is a 4 month old still not a person and can be "aborted" I'm not defending any position, just raising a question.
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:08 pm
AnalLog
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
Electromatic wrote:
Rebar wrote:
So, for arguments' sake, what is the "moral" cutoff? Is a 4 month old still not a person and can be "aborted" I'm not defending any position, just raising a question.
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:07 pm
The Maleficent
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
Electromatic wrote:
Never has a cause that is so insignificant to the majority of people in the world been more important to so many politically.
I always figured it's just an expression of male desire to control female ability to give birth. If they can't do it themselves they sure as hell aren't going to want women to have any control over the child-bearing process.
I'm pretty convinced if men got pregnant getting an abortion would be the kind of thing you go do with your buddies on a Friday night before you go looking for some trim.
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:43 pm
Unthought Known
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
malice wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
Never has a cause that is so insignificant to the majority of people in the world been more important to so many politically.
I always figured it's just an expression of male desire to control female ability to give birth. If they can't do it themselves they sure as hell aren't going to want women to have any control over the child-bearing process.
I'm pretty convinced if men got pregnant getting an abortion would be the kind of thing you go do with your buddies on a Friday night before you go looking for some trim.
Let the critical retorts commence!
Something something St. Peter said the Pope gets to determine which methods of birtch control you are allowed to use.
i will forever go by brain function. if it decides death, than it decides life too.
i'll attempt to explain:
take the horrible scenario that played out in Ohio this week. that kid shot 5 peers and as the news of whether the victims were injured or dead came out the deciding information was brain function. they were pronounced brain dead, and this messed up kid became a multi-murderer. therefore, if a certain amount of brain function determines whether a person is alive or dead, the same requirement should be used for a fetus. anything done before this point is permitted, anything after it is killing a person (there may still be times when abortion would save a pregnant woman's life, but i wouldn't think that that's up for debate).
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:22 am
AnalLog
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
broken iris wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
i will forever go by brain function. if it decides death, than it decides life too.
i'll attempt to explain:
take the horrible scenario that played out in Ohio this week. that kid shot 5 peers and as the news of whether the victims were injured or dead came out the deciding information was brain function. they were pronounced brain dead, and this messed up kid became a multi-murderer. therefore, if a certain amount of brain function determines whether a person is alive or dead, the same requirement should be used for a fetus. anything done before this point is permitted, anything after it is killing a person (there may still be times when abortion would save a pregnant woman's life, but i wouldn't think that that's up for debate).
i will forever go by brain function. if it decides death, than it decides life too.
i'll attempt to explain:
take the horrible scenario that played out in Ohio this week. that kid shot 5 peers and as the news of whether the victims were injured or dead came out the deciding information was brain function. they were pronounced brain dead, and this messed up kid became a multi-murderer. therefore, if a certain amount of brain function determines whether a person is alive or dead, the same requirement should be used for a fetus. anything done before this point is permitted, anything after it is killing a person (there may still be times when abortion would save a pregnant woman's life, but i wouldn't think that that's up for debate).
that's cute and all, but not really worth discussing.
It's taking the same argument you are making to a more extreme conclusion. The 'certain amount of brain function' line is arbitrary and destined to change as technology and medical science advance. It's similar to the older 'viability' argument, which is a smaller and smaller window as we move forward with technology. PKD's short story itself is quite riveting in ways that would drive Malice berserk, but its also a fascinating a take on feminism, materialism, and the role of both parents in society all wrapped in an anti-abortion screed.
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:47 pm
The Maleficent
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
Philip Dick's writing doesn't drive me berserk - I have a number of his novels and I like them mostly - but I do try to keep in mind he was literally insane, so there's that.
Ok, so here I go again - this ongoing 'national' argument about when does life begin, is ultimately irrelevant from my perspective. Until men are in a physical position to carry a pregnancy and deliver a baby, they really have absolutely no say in in any decision I or any woman makes regarding getting an abortion. This is a personal morality issue, and as such, should be dealt with by the woman who makes that decision, and possibly any God she chooses to believe in. And I also exclude the man who inseminates the woman as well. For this man, it was a physical act of pleasure that lasted a minute and he never has to think about again- there are no other obligatory repercussions for him- for a woman, we all know this isn't the case, and never will be until some 100% fool-proof form of birth control is created. Otherwise, the full burden of the decision rests with the woman. this is not a popular view for me to hold, but I, like PKD, must comment
Quote:
I stand where I stand: "Hier steh Ich; Ich kann nicht anders," ["Here I stand, I can do no other"] as Martin Luther is supposed to have said.[1]
And I will reiterate - if our physical abilities were reversed, and men got pregnant, there would be no national argument about this- it would be as acceptable as getting surgery to fix a deviated septum. Sheri Tepper (another fantastic Science Fiction writer) makes this point eloquently in a number of her novels including Gibbon's Decline and Fall, The Gate to Woman's Country, The Visitors, and Beauty, which I found the following quote from and seems appropriate here:
Quote:
We have been thwarted at every turn by god. Not the real God. A false one which has been set up by man to expedite his destruction of the earth. He is the gobble-god who bids fair to swallow everything in the name of a totally selfish humanity. His ten commandments are me first (let me live as I please), humans first (let all other living things die for my benefit), sperm first (no birth control), birth first (no abortions), males first (no women's rights), my culture/tribe/language/religion first (separatism/terrorism), my race first (no human rights), my politics first ... country first ... and, above all, profit first. We worship the gobble-god. We burn forests in his name. We kill whales and dolphins in his name .... we set bombs in his name.
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:24 pm
AnalLog
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
broken iris wrote:
The 'certain amount of brain function' line is arbitrary and destined to change as technology and medical science advance.
no its not. when a brain stem stops working (or has yet to develop) we're not talking about a human or a person w/ certain inalienable rights. making up cute, wanna-be, rebuttals about algebra is fun and all, but not something to be taken seriously.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum