Academics' defense of infanticide supported by pro-choice logic
Abortion supporters can see their own principles and logic reflected in a new article advocating the killing of newborn children, published by the Journal of Medical Ethics in February 2012.
Full story »
Eventually they're going to legalize murder by calling it "after birth abortion."
Or some sort of mercy killing post abortion...for the elderly.
Which is already going on.
Try not to remind me. We have legalized assisted suicide here and just about everyone and his cousin thinks it so great and recommends that we sign a paper to kill ourselves. There is *no* presumption of life (of wanting to live) in this state anymore, so if that's the desire, better have a lawyer draw up papers to specifically say it (husband and I have had to) or it's "good bye, that's all she wrote".
I say we should have after-birth abortions, all the way up to the age of 100 years.
But we should limit it to Australian ethicists. (Throw in Peter Singer, too, for good measure.)
Why does Pro-Choice always mean Pro-Abortion? I consider myself Pro-Life but not necessarily Anti-Choice.
Posted this in another thread:
Ron Paul Ad - Life - YouTube[/quote
He would make an excellent President of The US.
I say we should have after-birth abortions, all the way up to the age of 100 years.
But we should limit it to Australian ethicists. (Throw in Peter Singer, too, for good measure.)
It doesn't, and the fact that I have to explain something this simple over and over again is the same reason you and other OBOBers will never convince the pro-choice crowd: you think they are stupid and hypocritical and immoral and if that's the way you start a discussion, you are going to lose.
Pro-choice means that you think people are in charge of their own bodies, and that includes the things growing in them. Pro-choice sees abortion as a means to an end, not as a good thing on its own. Pro-abortion suggests that you are in favour of abortions as a means per se and that you would encourage anyone to have them, regardless of their reasons.
Anyone who fails to see and accept this will never win over any pro-choicer.
Their conclusions may shock but Guibilini and Minerva assert them very confidently. “We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.” This assertion highlights another aspect of their argument. Killing an infant after birth is not euthanasia either. In euthanasia, a doctor would be seeking the best interests of the person who dies. But in “after-birth abortion” it is the interests of people involved, not the baby.
To critical eyes, their argument will no doubt look like a slippery slope, as they are simply seeking to extend the logic of abortion to infanticide:
Their conclusions may shock but Guibilini and Minerva assert them very confidently. We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. This assertion highlights another aspect of their argument. Killing an infant after birth is not euthanasia either. In euthanasia, a doctor would be seeking the best interests of the person who dies. But in after-birth abortion it is the interests of people involved, not the baby.
To critical eyes, their argument will no doubt look like a slippery slope, as they are simply seeking to extend the logic of abortion to infanticide:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?