Journal of medical ethics: Killing babies after they are born is ok
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
People need to read this crap.
Then it will old people are moral equivalent of a fetus...
Then sick people
Then anybody who does not do what the people in charge want them to do.
You lefties should not fall for it.
From the link above.
"The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not âactual personsâ and do not have a âmoral right to lifeâ. 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 journalâs 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 âfanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal societyâ."
The article, entitled âAfter-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?â, was written by two of Prof Savulescuâs former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: âThe 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.â
Rather than being âactual personsâ, newborns were âpotential personsâ. They explained: âBoth a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a âpersonâ in the sense of âsubject of a moral right to lifeâ.
Then it will old people are moral equivalent of a fetus...
Then sick people
Then anybody who does not do what the people in charge want them to do.
You lefties should not fall for it.
From the link above.
"The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not âactual personsâ and do not have a âmoral right to lifeâ. 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 journalâs 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 âfanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal societyâ."
The article, entitled âAfter-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?â, was written by two of Prof Savulescuâs former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: âThe 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.â
Rather than being âactual personsâ, newborns were âpotential personsâ. They explained: âBoth a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a âpersonâ in the sense of âsubject of a moral right to lifeâ.
I want to hear at least 1 liberal comment on this.
You won't.
This country was founded on a few very basic principles, everyone is created equal and everyone is given by their creator unalienable rights, meaning they can't be taken away or separated from the individual, among these are the pursuit of happiness, liberty and the foundational "right to life". When and if unborn babies, and now it appears ever more likely "live babies" are ever given these, maybe this country will start to heal itself.... instead we are forced to listen to the drivel "women's health care", yada yada yada...... call it what it is.
INFANTICIDE