Sunday, March 4, 2012

Australian Ethicists Argue the Right to Kill Babies After They’re Born

In article entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” was recently published in the London-based Journal of Medical Ethics, advocating that if abortion is allowed, then society also has the right to kill a newborn child. This outrageous deduction by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva takes abortion to its logical conclusion.

The abstract states that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons…[and] 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.”

It is revolting to consider it a right to kill a perfectly formed, helpless newborn baby. This shocking position should stir a second look at legalized abortion. If you can kill a child in the womb, even up to the moment before birth, then there is no logical reason to protect life after birth.

A human being begins at the moment of conception and should be afforded legal protection at all stages of life. It is shocking to see people advocating killing children after they are born. It is just as shocking to see people advocating killing them before they are born.

If the test for one’s life continuing was based on not burdening someone else, everyone’s life would fail at one point or another. The question then becomes how burdensome must you be to merit your murder?

Read News Release for more details.

Since when did children become such a liability? I hope that some of my Aussie friends will be able to refute this horrible news and tell me it isn't so. I just cannot fathom that it is true.

Children are so precious and innocent. What have they done to deserve to be murdered? Nothing at all.

This is appalling and heart breaking. I cannot believe anyone would actually condone this.


Where is the outcry?

32 comments:

Silverfiddle said...

This is the next logical step for the death cultists, isn't it?

When they argue for abortion using words like viable, self-sustaining, ability to reason, it is an easy logical leap to kill all kinds of inconvenient people.

cube said...

A slippery slope leading right to death panels. Remember how they ridiculed Sarah Palin for that?

dmarks said...

with these people, it is quite similar to bullies who get a sick thrill feeling superior expressing their power over "lesser" humans.

Liberalmann said...

Wow, you are missing so many facts and contorting others that it's no point to argue with one as deficient as you.

Leticia said...

I just find it unfathomable how little some people have no regard for human life, especially precious little babies.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

Very worrying that these people are advocating this sort of evil without any shame. Don't even the people that work with them or know them have any conscience.

dmarks said...

We are still waiting for Liberalmann to back up anything he said in his comment. He won't.

He just shows that he doesn't like the facts, doesn't like reality, so he sticks his tongue out and sticks his finger in his ears. And since he doesn't like an article opposing infanticide, does this mean he is in favor of infanticide? Perhaps. Why else would he whine in opposition to post like this?

jez said...

there's plenty of outcry, isn't there? Didn't you hear about this paper via outcry?

Anyway, what this paper really argues is, if we permit late term abortions for convenience, there's no reason not to permit infanticide -- I expect you agree with that assessment, that's why you oppose late term abortions, right?

Leticia said...

MK, how right you are. I find so hard to believe how people want to murder babies already outside of the womb.
Not only do we fight for the pre-born but it looks like we are going have to fighting for those already born.

dmarks, good questions. I don't understand it myself.

Jez, I actually oppose everything that has to do with the murder of a pre-born regardless of the stage they are in. I am completely against abortion.

jez said...

I know Leticia, but that includes late-term.

I'm sure i've seen the argument that abortion is tantamount to infanticide expressed at your blog, maybe even by you. Well, that same argument is the subject of this paper.

I'm not claiming that the paper is academically brilliant, just making the point that it could easily have been written by a pro-lifer trying to shock legislators into tightening controls over (especially late term) abortions.

Liberalmann said...

Leticia on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTNmSwDt5kc

dmarks said...

Liberal: That's not Leticia. It's Jane Curtin and Gilda Radner.



This is like when you copied someone else's editorial and presented it here as your own. Can you at least try for some credibility?

Or perhaps you are like everyone on the Left who bashes Sarah Palin for saying she could see Alaska for her house. She never said anything like this, but it makes Palin look worse if you make up quotations and get people to believe she said them.

Also, care to address my earlier comment to provide support for your accusations? As it stands, it looks to everyone reading this that you made stuff up entirely.

Magpie said...

“Where is the outcry?”

1/ This is the first I’ve heard of this. (The link to the article doesn’t work for me, btw).

2/ I don’t like ethicists, on the whole. People should find their sense of right and wrong for themselves, like proper grown-ups, and ethicism amounts to someone else telling you with presumptive authority what you should think is right and wrong. Religion has been in that game for a long time now. Opinions vary on how good a thing that has been.

3/ I am pro-choice – provided the abortion is done very early. Fact is abortions will be carried out no matter how sick it makes me, and whether it’s legal or not. Best we can do is
a/ make it safe – we don’t want to lose the mother as well
and
b/ minimize it in the first place, not by calling college girls who have sex “sluts” - like that fat bastard on the radio - but by making sure contraception is accessible and affordable, and encouraging boys to carry condoms.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

"I'm not claiming that the paper is academically brilliant, "

Did someone say that you were?

"...just making the point that it could easily have been written by a pro-lifer trying to shock legislators into tightening controls over (especially late term) abortions."

That would be good if it happened, i doubt it will though.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

"a/ make it safe – we don’t want to lose the mother as well "

Well.... haven't really made up my mind on that, the way i see it, if you take a dim view of your unborn baby, i take a dim view of you.

"b/ minimize it in the first place..."

Easiest way to do that is to make it illegal i would have thought. Following your reasoning, maybe we can increase the speed limits on our national roads, they're breaking the law anyway, might as well legalize going faster right. Make it safer by providing taxpayer funded advanced driver training, yes.

"not by calling college girls who have sex “sluts”"

Why not, i would have thought that shaming promiscious women and men may encourage them to avoid needing to have an abortion in the first place, you do want to minimize it don't you.

And why the 'fat' bastard, have you got something against fat people, if you're angry with this person, why don't you just call him a 'bastard'.

"....and encouraging boys to carry condoms."

Good point, and don't forget to tell girls to keep their legs closed as well, it's the easiest way to stay out of trouble.

Magpie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Magpie said...

“if you take a dim view of your unborn baby, i take a dim view of you”

So you want to kill the mother as well– thanks for clarifying.
14 year old rape victims included I assume.

“Easiest way to do that is to make it illegal i would have thought.”

Then you thought wrong. It would happen anyway.
With wire coat-hangers.

“Following your reasoning, maybe we can increase the speed limits on our national roads, they're breaking the law anyway, might as well legalize going faster right.”

Depends… can you make driving faster safer?
If so, then yes. Increase the speed limits.
Otherwise, find another strawman.

“I would have thought that shaming promiscious women and men may encourage them to avoid needing to have an abortion in the first place”

Never has. And you spelt promiscuous wrong.
Plus I realise that your knowledge of sex might be very limited – heck, it must be if that’s your attitude… - but you can actually get pregnant with just one partner, in one encounter.
Married women use contraception too.

Contraception solves a lot of things and you still get laid, you should check it out.

“have you got something against fat people?”

No. I’d call him a short bastard if he was short. Just helps you know who I was talking about…. And you did know, didn’t you?

“and don't forget to tell girls to keep their legs closed as well”

No I think the condom idea is better. Strangely I don’t expect people not to have sex if just I tell them not too. I’m just humble that way.
Anyway I like sex.
So does the fat bastard, I hear…

jez said...

"ethicism amounts to someone else telling you with presumptive authority what you should think is right and wrong."

I am not a philosopher, but I don't think that's the point of moral philosophy. IMO it's all about increasing the exposed surface area of ethical choices in order to better probe, argue and compare alternatives. If the line of reasoning is not exposed, we're reduced to announcing our opinions. You can't argue with a bald opinion, so all we can do is accept the highest authority. It's not until you come up with reasons that there's anything to probe or argue with.

I would say the discipline of moral philosophy is actually the only way to free ourselves from appeal to authority.

Also, there is a practical need to ethicists because it's a specialism in its own right, and sometimes eg. surgeons & medical researchers need ethical guidelines to follow. These problems can get pretty complicated, and it would be dangerous to rely on the individual practitioner's gut feeling. He's already a specialist in his own field, it's a bit much to require him to specialise in ethics too.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

@Magpie - "So you want to kill the mother as well– thanks for clarifying. 14 year old rape victims included I assume."

Maybe you believe that all abortions are only for 14 year old rape victims, they aren't. I was referring to women who chose to have an abortion for reasons of convenience and I never said 'kill them', you said - 'lose them' in your earlier comment - it's not the same as killing them. Subtle difference and perhaps I should have been clearer, my bad. To me, a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual behavior, gets pregnant and then decides to kill the baby off because she just doesn't want to be bothered with it, is not a nice woman, to put it in the best possible light. I take a dim view of such women but to be clear - i don't want them to be executed.

And the way I see it for medical cases, why does the baby have to be killed to save the mother, why can't both be saved or at least the attempt be made. As for rape victims, I’m still mulling over that one, I can understand why they wouldn’t want to carry the baby of their rapist, but to me it’s still punishing the baby for the sins of the father. So i haven’t worked out my position on it yet.

"Depends… can you make driving faster safer?"

I told you, the taxpayer funded advanced driver training, and glad you agree.

"Never has. And you spelt promiscuous wrong."

I find that hard to believe that shaming has never had any effect, have you any proof? I agree it won't stop 100% but at least a sizable percentage have to be influenced by it. I know in the past many women wouldn't go out to have one-night-stands because of society’s attitude towards it not to mention the consequences. So I think the shame-factor played a part, unless you can prove that it played no part at all. Thanks for the spell check, nice of you.

I don't know why you're questioning my sexual experience and making assumptions on it, but if it makes you feel better. And yes, I know that you can get pregnant with one partner dear. Again, I was referring to the 'college girls' that you brought up earlier, and I added college boys, it’s not right that only girls are shamed for being sluts while boys are praised.

I just think that if society frowns upon college kids leading a promiscuous life, it'll help to lower the number of STDs, the need for abortion and lead them down the right path.

I have nothing against contraception.

"No I think the condom idea is better. Strangely I don’t expect people not to have sex if just I tell them not too. I’m just humble that way."

Yes, that's why I agreed with you, I just think that we should also advise girls to keep their legs closed. I don’t mind if you want your idea to be ‘better’ than mine, I think both pieces of advice are good in conjunction. And I wasn't demanding that you go out on to the street corner and start screaming and shouting it at them. Since you're humble, you should be able to find a way to say it in a nice way to people you know.

In my life experience I’ve found that someone telling another person about to do something destructive may in fact stop them from doing it. It has stopped me from doing stupid things in the past and while you feel resentful at the time, as one matures you become grateful to that person for saving you from trouble. I understand that it won't always prevent them from doing it but it can’t make it worse can it. I don’t know if you have children, but wouldn’t you tell them that having sex willy-nilly with strangers isn’t a good idea, even with protection?

"Anyway I like sex."

Well good for you, so do I. You can like it more than me if you want. :)

On a side note, i know you're pro-choice and you said that so long as it's early, but where exactly does 'early' stop? And should abortions after that point be criminalized?

Magpie said...

I find that hard to believe that shaming has never had any effect, have you any proof?

Burden of proof lies with you I think. You are advocating it after all.

But even if it did, just take a deep breath and ponder if you really want to go there.
The vilification of women for their sexual proclivities is the hallmark of repressive societies, including hard-line Islamist ones. And let’s not dance around what shaming is – it’s vilification.

People, especially young people, WILL have sex. If you don’t want abortion, either medical or backyard, then contraception is the only answer.

“Thanks for the spell check, nice of you.”

No, it was asinine of me. Sorry about that. I got riled up.

“it’s not right that only girls are shamed for being sluts while boys are praised.

I agree. Let’s not call anyone a slut.

“know you're pro-choice and you said that so long as it's early, but where exactly does 'early' stop?”

I’m not a doctor, but about after about 15 weeks I don’t think it can be called early any more. If someone comes back with a definition of “early” being less than that then fine, but after about 15 weeks the procedure becomes more – shall we say – confronting.
Should it be criminalised after that? No, I think the cut-off point would have to be later and again I’m not a doctor.

I find the act of abortion hard to accept - but telling women what to do with their bodies – their lives – is worse. The person who should make the decision though, is not you, me, a judge, a doctor, a politician and certainly not a shock jock – it’s the woman or girl in question. She has to live with the outcome, either way.

jez said...

MK: "As for rape victims, I’m still mulling over that one, I can understand why they wouldn’t want to carry the baby of their rapist, but to me it’s still punishing the baby for the sins of the father."

Arguably the concept of punishment does not apply to an as-yet-unformed-baby. There's no argument that the mother is, though.

"That [reconsideration of late-term abortion law] would be good if it happened, i doubt it will though."

By the way, it's not my idea: from Leticia's article: "This shocking position should stir a second look at legalized abortion."

Leticia: "I cannot believe anyone would actually condone this."

This actually shouldn't surprise you, I think killing or abandoning unwanted babies has been common practice throughout most of human history & prehistory.

Even today with out strongly entrenched cultural rejection of the practice, infanticide is more common than any other type of murder. See http://www.psychiatryjournal.co.uk/article/S1476-1793%2808%2900217-6/fulltext .

It would be more surprising if infanticide were ever eradicated.

I'm not saying we should approve of it, but this attitude doesn't deserve to be met with surprise. This is, unfortunately, what humans are like.
Many women suffer PPD, at the severe end it can result in infanticide. This contributes significantly to the statistics, and IMO it would be ludicrous to view these cases as homicide.

Let's face it, newborn babies can be pretty extreme. Comedian Louis CK used to do a routine based on the idea that, while he wouldn't leave his baby in a trash can himself, he does get why some people do. (it's funnier than it sounds!)

jez said...

typo: Even today with our strongly entrenched cultural rejection of the practice

Right Wing Theocrat said...

Thanks for responding Magpie; I thought I already offered evidence that shaming does work. I know back when I was growing up, if I had started doing drugs and/or sleeping around, society around me would have frowned upon it, apart from catching it from my folks too. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating that promiscuous women be tied up in the public square so old tomatoes can be thrown at them or something like that, just a return to the norms of the old days, some positive changes to it, whilst discarding the ‘bad’ of the old days.

When I hit my teen years, it was actually seen as a sort of achievement for boys to be sleeping around with many women and the tide was turning the same way for women in some parts of the country. And I’ve seen the consequences, children growing up without their father, men fathering children with different women and not to mention the rate of STDs or worse, HIV.

In parts of the country where society didn’t look the other way or applaud it, you still got the dire consequences but the rate of it was far less than in the cities where society looked the other way. And the funny thing was that condoms were freely available in the cities, you could just grab a handful of the things from a clinic or any health-related office. So from what I’ve seen contraception on its own isn’t enough.

And I don’t see it being comparative to repressive Taliban-like societies; I think you’d have to go back centuries to find similar things in the west, if any at all.

Alright so your personal cut-off is 15 weeks but you don’t want abortion after that to be criminalized. Is there any point at which it should be criminalized? You sort of alluded to it by saying that it should be up to the woman, then essentially you’re alright with abortion right up until 35 weeks or until the day of delivery being allowed, correct?

And if so, what about new-borns, should the killing of them be allowed too, the subject of Leticia’s post?

Thanks again for taking the time.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

Yes jez, newborn babies can be pretty extreme, so can toddlers and even teenagers. But the killing of any of them should never be treated lightly.

Magpie said...

“ essentially you’re alright with abortion right up until 35 weeks or until the day of delivery being allowed, correct?”

I am never alright with abortion.

I would consider banning it after 15 weeks but with a massive number of caveats and conditions, wherein some might be permitted after that.

Anti-abortionists attribute full humanity at conception, aggressive pro-choicers from birth. I’m in the horrible in-between where I don’t demonize the mothers who do abort, and nor do I think abortion is fine.

Many people love simplicity in their moral arguments, but if it was that simple, we wouldn’t be debating it in the first place.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

What do you mean by a ‘massive’ number of caveats and conditions? From your previous statements I would have thought your caveats and conditions would be allowing abortion for medical reasons and for rape victims, are there more?

From my perspective, those two could be hypothetical caveats or conditions where abortion is allowed. I’d be interested to know if there are others, bearing in mind that if you have too many caveats and conditions where abortion is legally allowed at any point, then you run the risk of rendering the ban or proverbial line-in-the-sand completely meaningless.

jez said...

"But the killing of any of them should never be treated lightly."

Where treated lightly is anything less than executing them, right?

Right Wing Theocrat said...

No.

Mind you, i am in favor of the death penalty.

Leticia said...

The thing is, babies are absolutely innocent and those in the womb are precious.

They deserve to live, regardless of how they were brought into the world.

And I am with RWT, I do, support the death penalty.

jez said...

executing murderers is arguable (in my opinion regrettable).
executing mothers who abandon babies (which happens a lot, see that link i offered above) is far sillier. I think we agree that far.

Leticia said...

Jez, definitely agree about murdering the mothers who aborted their babies. Some of them truly regret what they did and suffer, emotionally, for years.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

So long as the woman was suffering from some sort of mental illness, if she wasn't and she killed off her baby or children simply because she was evil, then she needs a date with a 'chair'.