Killing babies no different from abortion…..

I am interrupting my “no blog Friday” to share this important and chilling article:         

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.

A group of ethicists has argued that killing young babies is no different from abortion

A group of ethicists has argued that killing young babies is no different from abortion Photo: Alamy
 
Stephen Adams
By , Medical Correspondent
1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012
 
 
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.”
___________________
 
 

Will they come for you next, because you are old, infirm, handicapped, too much of a burden on the “health-care” system? Just think about it. Do some research on what happens in other countries which long ago embraced “universal health care.”
 
Please join with Catholics and people of all faith and no faith in fighting the HHS mandate. (http://stophhs.com) While it is being presented by the administration as an issue of “women’s health,” it is actually a first amendment issue. Have you noticed that Freedom of religion is now being carefully referred to as “freedom of worship,” which is very different. Worship can be confined to your church, synagogue, etc. Freedom of religion is a much broader term which allows free expression of religion in the marketplace. Remember the clever semantics to force-feed abortion to the masses: termination of pregnancy, reproductive rights, pro-choice, etc. Carefully chosen words can persuade others to accept what they would otherwise never accept.
 
BTW, have you asked yourself why contraceptives, abortifacient drugs (morning after pill, etc.), and sterilization should be absolutely free (no co-pays or other patient responsibility.) Why not “free” cancer treatment, or free treatment for heart problems, etc? These are actually true diseases.
 
Once rights are surrendered to the government, it is almost impossible to reclaim them. Just think about it…..
Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Killing babies no different from abortion…..

  1. I know, Lisa. It’s hard to wrap you mind around this stuff. It is, of course, the logical progression once abortion was accepted by most people. There truly is a culture of life and a culture of death out there. God help us!

  2. Patricia, There has been such an increase in the intensity and progression of evil that not only can’t I keep up I wonder how long the Lord will let this continue. His mercy I know is endless and I pray for it daily, but my goodness the devastation of years of abortion has left a wake of despair and destruction.
    More prayer…more trust…deliver us O Lord.
    Love you +

    • I know, Caroline. It’s frightening…the rapid demise of the moral values our culture has long cherished….and so few seem to notice. That is what is really disturbing. Imagine, when a woman can claim with a straight face that she and her fellow law students are so stressed about affording their birth control at a Catholic University that their grades are suffering!!! Huh?

      This isn’t the first I’ve heard about killing newborns. There is a professor at Princeton, forget his name, who promotes the same ideology. And I’m not naive enough to think it won’t happen. We are already losing 90 percent of precious Down Syndrome babies to abortion.

      Love you too! Thanks for you email…so glad all is well : )
      Keep the lights on for me! xo

      PS Just checked. It’s Professor Peter Singer.

  3. Heaven help us!! Nothing else can!
    I read about this in the newspaper with my hubby the other day.
    It horrorfied us!
    My friend, I am thoroughly ashamed that these people are connected to an Australian university – but not very surprised!
    These clever minds are out to “shock” us at first by talking openly about this, and once it becomes a more general topic of conversation they’ll wear down arguments against it’s introduction into law.
    “Little by little – everything whittles!”
    Partial birth abortion already happens..so why not post birth.
    And if you can kill a tiny newborn..why not a “terrible” two year old..or a “troubled” teenager…or a “tiresome” elderly person?
    But let’s call it something “other” than what it really is – MURDER!!
    And let’s use the excuse that a newborn has “no aspirations about life” to justify what we’re doing to them.
    Really??!!
    So the same people proposing this horror had “aspirations” as a newborn and thus are justified to be living amongst us today?
    What garbage! This makes me so irate!
    Sorry about ranting like this, my friend.. I don’t feel very charitable towards the ‘philosophers’ in this article, I’m afraid.

  4. Trish, you are welcome to come here and “rant” anytime! I love your rant, and I agree with every word! Please don’t think it is just the Australians who are promoting this….we have “intellectuals” (isn’t it always THEM) in the U.S. who are preaching the same atrocities.

    Just like you so astutely observed, they slowly introduce their abomination into the marketplace of dialogue and get people used to at least hearing about it, and they bide their time to make their next move. It’s what they did with the whole abortion nightmare, as well as the same sex “marriage” thing.

    I’m so glad that people like you are out there who are clever enough to grasp what’s happening, and fashion the truth into an awesome comment.

    And yes, “Heaven help us!” for truly who else can?

    And please pray for us here in the US with our government trying to force the Church to fund contraception, abortifacients and sterilization. Never before have we faced such a serious threat to our First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion.

    God bless you, dear Trish! So good to hear from you again…
    Love you,
    Patricia

Your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s