OMG: Psychotic Aussie "Ethicists," Yes, EthicistS argue FOR Killing Fetuses AND Healthy Infants!Submitted by AnCapMercenary on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 02:53
"morally irrelevant" is what he calls them.
Contrary to the primary motivators (at least the publicly openly touted religious angle) of this wedge issue from the American political landscape, the crazed lunatic is simply carrying on the proud tradition of pre-WWII Anglo-American-Saxon Eugenicists.
And you thought Hitler simply faded away.
Now even if one were the most ardent 'pro-choice' advocate, I cannot fathom how any sane person could intellectually, or even medically argue that it would be a "good thing" to kill an infant, and call a living breathing soul "morally irrelevant."
It is simply utterly repugnant and disgusting; the brazen arrogance, and the gall of this eugenicist is shockingly psychotic.
Is nothing sacred in this world any more?
I mean, do you get brownie points for making psychotic comments for sheer shock value amongst your psychotic band of morally irrelevant clique of delusional ne'er do wells who cannot fathom that, that baby could be your child, sometime in the future?
Yeah, real hardy har-har.
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; firstname.lastname@example.org
Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.
Received 25 November 2011
Revised 26 January 2012
Accepted 27 January 2012
Published Online First 23 February 2012
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue 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.
Uh... OM F G!
What is wrong with these NON-humans?
Oh right, they must NOT be humans!
Ethicists Argue Killing Newborn Babies Should Be Allowed
Shocking reminder that eugenicist beliefs underpin medical establishment
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
A paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible, even if the baby is perfectly healthy, in a shocking example of how the medical establishment is still dominated by a eugenicist mindset.
The paper is authored by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.
The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
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.
New arrival: but if his parents earn more than £60,000 each he will lose his Child Benefit from January Photo: Alamy
By Stephen Adams, 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.