Mar 2, 2012
Print This Post
A British medical journal is defending the publication of an article that argues it should be permissible to kill newborn babies because they don’t have the “same moral standing as actual persons.”
“After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” was published last week in the Journal of Medical Ethics. It was written by Alberto Giubilini, of the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva, of the University of Melbourne and Oxford University.
BUY TODD’S NEW BOOK – ENDORSED BY SEAN HANNITY AND MARK LEVIN!
The writers suggested that newborn babies are morally equivalent “potential persons” whose family’s interests override theirs, according to the Sydney Morning News.
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.”
Click here to read the entire academic paper.
Both academics said they have received death threats after writing their paper, which Minerva said was “theoretical” and intended for an academic community.
“This was a theoretical and academic article,” she told the newspaper. “I didn’t mean to change any laws. I’m not in favor of infanticide. I’m just using logical arguments.”
But pro-life advocates in the United States scoffed at such a defense.
“It’s not just theoretical,” said David Prentice, a senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council. “As soon as you propose this type of idea, there are people who will pick it up and try to put it into practice.”
Prentice said the academic paper is further evidence “of the erosion of any sort of consideration for human life and human dignity.”
Prentice, who has a Ph.D. in Bio-chemistry, said article shows how this could “easily become a real life and death situation for many people.”
“They are saying a newborn essentially has no moral standing as a human being,” Prentice told Fox News.
Robert Jeffress, the senior pastor at the First Baptist Church in Dallas, said the medical journal exposed the true nature of the pro-choice movement.
“Those of us who are pro-life should welcome this article because it unmasks the pro-choice movement for what it really is – a license to kill,” Jeffress told Fox News. “This is more indicative of the culture of death in which we are living. This shows the natural end of the abortion argument – which is killing children for convenience.”
Penny Nance, the president of Concerned Women for America, condemend the article.
“This is deeply, darkly disturbing,” she told Fox News. “It’s just carrying the abortion argument to its logical conclusion – that there are only certain rights for human beings and perhaps when you reach a certain level that society judges you useful, that you have full rights to life.”
The company that owns the Journal of Medical Ethics strongly defended the authors and their article, while denouncing critics as “fanatics.”
“What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal,” wrote Julian Savulescu, editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics. “It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.
But Jeffress said all movements start somewhere.
“Every movement begins with an academic argument to lay the moral justification,” he said. “That certainly included the genocide that took place in the Holocaust. You have to have an academic basis before society will buy into something.”
“I believe it would have been unthinkable fifty years ago that our nation would have legalized the killing of unborn children in the womb,” Jeffress said. “What is unthinkable today becomes a part of public policy ten years from now.”
And Nance said that what the article is advocating is not exactly a new concept.
“We also saw this same line of reasoning from Peter Singer at Princeton University,” she said. “He has argued that there should be a time after a child is born that parents decide whether or not they want to keep it.”
Related posts:
FOX News Talk
Well people, this is what you get from progressives. The further degradation of society so the government can then step in and say "we know what is best for you". And there are some who are scared of Santorum? I will take a strong religious person anyday over some whack job like this.
I find it more disturbing that the publication that printed this tripe is defending them. That they came up with a new take on this idiocy isn't really that surprising. The two most common things on earth are nitrogen and stupidity.
One of the authors of this medical publication defends it by saying, “This was a theoretical and academic article,” “I didn’t mean to change any laws. I’m not in favor of infanticide. I’m just using logical arguments.” Oh really? And this is meant to inspire, who? Academia? College students? Future doctors, lawyers, teachers, potential world leaders or policy makers? And to what end I ask? Dear God in Heaven, save us from these elitests.
'“What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal,” wrote Julian Savulescu, editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics. “It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.'
Yes, THEIR freedoms are threatened by us hostile, abusive FANATICS.
'“What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal,” wrote Julian Savulescu, editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics. “It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.'
Yes, THEIR freedoms are threatened by us hostile, abusive FANATICS.
What? In honor of Dr. Seuss's birthday – "a person's a person, NO MATTER HOW SMALL!"
Pro life arguments aside, "academics" have an obligation to realize what storms their comments may create. Regular citizens are not forbidden from reading "academic" journals. Executing newborns because they have no moral standing ranks with executing the mentally infirm and disabled because they are a drain on societial resources. Seems to me the NAZI government already tried that and the world condems those actions. This article gives credence to the long held belief that "academics" just don't live in the real world… or care to.
Yep, the German did and they learned about it from us. Everyone seems to forget the US was the leader in eugenics.
Yep, the German did and they learned about it from us. Everyone seems to forget the US was the leader in eugenics.
I think Virginia was still sterilizing kids because they were delinquint even up to the early 50's. This is why I shudder when I hear "educated" academics offer such ideas.
It was one thing when Johnathan Swift wrote his magnificent satire "A Modest Proposal". He was a known satirist. But when medical doctors write an article published in a peer-review journal? Have we really come to that? It is bad enough when doctors seeking the almighty dollar, advocate killing foetuses; but to propose killing newborns? What's next? It's okay to kill your children until they become adults?
People who propose such wretchedly abhorrent measures should undergo involuntary sterilization, followed by permanent solitary imprisonment. Why risk corrupting the gene pool any further?
It was one thing when Johnathan Swift wrote his magnificent satire "A Modest Proposal". He was a known satirist. But when medical doctors write an article published in a peer-review journal? Have we really come to that? It is bad enough when doctors seeking the almighty dollar, advocate killing foetuses; but to propose killing newborns? What's next? It's okay to kill your children until they become adults?
People who propose such wretchedly abhorrent measures should undergo involuntary sterilization, followed by permanent solitary imprisonment. Why risk corrupting the gene pool any further?
Paster Jeffress, your comment that this paper "unmasks the pro-choice movement for what it is – a license to kill," is a fool's rant and exposes a serious shortcoming in your intellect. I, for one, am pro-choice, and am horrified at the idea of killing a newborn baby. I support a woman's right to choose abortion prior to viability, and I am certain that the vast majority of pro-choice advocates feel the same, and would be equally horrified at the idea of killing a newborn baby. You need to put a sock in your pie hole and stop trying to generalize your fetid assumptions on a large class of people you apparently know nothing about.
This is in a society that considers it evil to execute a criminal who is responsible for the most heinous of crimes maybe because he or she didn't have a good upbringing, etc. but considers the murder of innocent little ones to be OK. Or from a society that worries more about the life of a spotted owl or a snail darter or a seal or a whale than it does a human child.
My wife brought this article to my attension days ago and I was appalled, but not surprised how far down the slippery slope our society has fallen.
I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. ~Ronald Reagan
Parents do have a right to decided whether they want to keep a child after its born. If the child is "inconvenient" to the family they can give it up in adoption. There are lots of people who love little "inconveniences".
Parents do have a right to decided whether they want to keep a child after its born. If the child is "inconvenient" to the family they can give it up in adoption. There are lots of people who love little "inconveniences".
Parents do have a right to decided whether they want to keep a child after its born. If the child is "inconvenient" to the family they can give it up in adoption. There are lots of people who love little "inconveniences".
is there a difference between baby in womb or outside the womb so does that mean the parent has the right or the doc. or government.ect. interesting fetus or baby one you can see the other you cant. it is very true if you got rid of potential person or persons there would be no more democrats.
Racist joke.
Most people who are for abortion have already been born. Same with this. Just like "Soylent Green" our offspring will probably be offered an incentive to euthanize us when it is too expensive to prolong our lives. It is a slippery slope and it begins with devaluing life. How many Mozarts, Einsteins, Paul Jobs,
This is evil at it's core.
This is evil at it's core.
I agree! And it is just getting worse.
I agree! And it is just getting worse.
Yikes.
What a joke. In every sense.
I actually read the paper (I wonder what percentage of the other posters did? Not many is my guess…) and it's obviously written to promote the anti-choice agenda. First, because contrary to the assertions of the authors, we CAN, thanks to scientific data, make a reasonable assessment of the stage at which a fetus can be unequivocally considered to be a person per the accepted legal/ethical definition. And that stage is reached when the fetal neurological development is commensurate with that seen in other beings who demonstrate behavior consistent with our conception of awareness. IOW, a fetus becomes a person, rather than merely an organism with human DNA, sometime early in the third trimester. Add a little prudent allowance fo rnatural variability in developmental rates, and we can draw the line at 20 weeks or so.
Abortion advocates who categorically insist that a fetus is not a person until the moment of birth are as wrong as those who insist that personhood begins at conception. Both positions are purely ideological dogma, and fail to address what can be logically inferred from the empirical evidence.
What a joke. In every sense.
I actually read the paper (I wonder what percentage of the other posters did? Not many is my guess…) and it's obviously written to promote the anti-choice agenda. First, because contrary to the assertions of the authors, we CAN, thanks to scientific data, make a reasonable assessment of the stage at which a fetus can be unequivocally considered to be a person per the accepted legal/ethical definition. And that stage is reached when the fetal neurological development is commensurate with that seen in other beings who demonstrate behavior consistent with our conception of awareness. IOW, a fetus becomes a person, rather than merely an organism with human DNA, sometime early in the third trimester. Add a little prudent allowance fo rnatural variability in developmental rates, and we can draw the line at 20 weeks or so.
Abortion advocates who categorically insist that a fetus is not a person until the moment of birth are as wrong as those who insist that personhood begins at conception. Both positions are purely ideological dogma, and fail to address what can be logically inferred from the empirical evidence.
Insanity.
This was supported by Margaret Sanger, the progenetor of "Pro Choice" it was/is called "Eugenics" and is precisely what Hitler supported as well.
So fitting that he gets hostile, abusive and threatening responses to his hostile, abusive and threatening to life ideas.
I read this unable to process that this is the world we are living in. Where "ideas" like this can even be thought, let alone published.
Take a quick look at our current prez and his vote on infanticide… if you really want to be sick.
Pesky babies. Let's all put on our baby-stomping boots.
ugh, this is disturbing. I'm already against abortion but this is textbook murder. why cant anyone see that?
this is a living, breathing human being. a creation of god. the thing about abortion is that by killing that fetus is basically saying that god made a mistake by giving that miracle to someone, and god never makes mistakes.
Just read the a sob story post from someone who more or less said that a baby should be killed if it presents a problem to someone's economic condition. There is a remedy for that; adoption. This idea of human disposal when someone is inconvinent to society didn't work in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's and won't fly today. What would be next? Killing the elderly because they just use resources or the unemployed because they can't find work? What skeleton could they find in your closet?
Just read the a sob story post from someone who more or less said that a baby should be killed if it presents a problem to someone's economic condition. There is a remedy for that; adoption. This idea of human disposal when someone is inconvinent to society didn't work in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's and won't fly today. What would be next? Killing the elderly because they just use resources or the unemployed because they can't find work? What skeleton could they find in your closet?
Anyone opposed to killing those who can not take care of themselves, listen to me just a moment. There are all manner of welfare folk out there who are a burden and even worse, there are deadbeat dad's who not only spounge of society, they father kids who they will not support. Now, wouldn't it be wonderful to go out and kill these deadbeat dads! Admit it, wouldn't it be neat getting rid of the genetic trash! Support Nazies-R-Us.
Anyone opposed to killing those who can not take care of themselves, listen to me just a moment. There are all manner of welfare folk out there who are a burden and even worse, there are deadbeat dad's who not only spounge of society, they father kids who they will not support. Now, wouldn't it be wonderful to go out and kill these deadbeat dads! Admit it, wouldn't it be neat getting rid of the genetic trash! Support Nazies-R-Us.
Absolutely disgusting. Joining the likes of Hitler, Mao, Saddam, Osama, and genocide. Sick and evil.
absolutely rediculous! If they can put this into law then we can kiss our civilization as a whole goodbuy, we don't deserve to be saved.
Eugenics rides high again. Please remember the last set of people who pushed Eugenics, Hitler and friends. We tend to repeat history because we do not read history any more. What is next kill all of the old people because they do not produce anything or do we go back to the sterilization of defective individuals. Human life, at conception or at birth is the most important thing we have, we can not allow the beautiful people to decide who lives and who dies or even who can create life. I hope that the Universities fire these nuts, their is no place for these teaching in our world.
I would like to see "ALL" of those DIRECTLY INVOLVED with this article, publicly "K! LLED"… there it is. "STUPID LIMEYS". never did have any use for those FOOLS…
I wish whoever wrote that article was aborted!
I wish whoever wrote that article was aborted!
"Both academics said they have received death threats after writing their paper, which Minerva said was 'theoretical' and intended for an academic community…. [S]he told the newspaper… 'I’m just using logical arguments.'”.
Now I'm confused. The paper presented logical arguments why it is irrational to advance a "sanctity of life" standard, that all lives must be judged on a utilitarian basis, and if one person's life is sufficiently inconvenient to others, than it is completely morally acceptable to kill them. So apparently some readers found their logical arguments completely convincing, and are now applying that same logic to the authors of the paper. They conclude that, as the authors' writings endanger what they consider the best interests of society, those authors should be killed for the benefit of society as a whole. Are they protesting that this would be, what?, morally wrong? But you just convinced us that "morality" and "wrong" are silly, impractical notions that our society is now too highly evolved to take seriously anymore! Please, make up your minds!
CHINA does this already. Our largest trading partner has a one child policy under which this is done often.
Not sure why the journal was bent out of shape about the threats. They were also taking the authors' arguments to their logical conclusion. If a newborn has no right to live, neither does any human being.
oh my goodness… did anyone read the medical journal article? I didn't, therefore I have no clue what the context was about. considering it was for theoretical academic purposes, it could very well be on the issue if someone asked a doctor to perform it. Like, how would you react if a women gave birth and instantly requested that it be terminated? could you or should you do it. since doctors have a professional obligation to preserve life (which is why you cannot be denied care due to not having medical coverage or if you cannot consent due to not being conscience).
has anyone been in a room when a still born comes out? its sad, no one is happy, and it ruins most medical professionals days. I know the republican party thinks that doctors run around like tribal monkeys swinging a still born by the legs rejoicing that it was born dead, but that's not the truth. the article probably was asking ob/gyn students what they would do. and wouldn't you want the doctor that said he could not do that due to his ethical commitment to children born in his hospital?
the same was done for the partial birth abortion (like romenys wife did). some doctors just cant do it. there is no law that says you have to terminate a pregnancy, either by your or your patients request. now, decisions can be made to save someone, either fetus or parent. but those are normally weighted against all available actions the medical team can make. like sometimes parents have to choose losing both twins or just one in special circumstances by cutting off the umbilical cord to one, one baby is better than none right? or if the pregnancy will kill the mother, most logical people will terminate the pregnancy.
moral of the story is that it is not always a selfish decision because the baby is not wanted. its about preserving life.
This is Nazi dogma. "Newborn babies are morally equivalent “potential persons”"? This was the same mindset that led to the genocide of mentally ill persons in Nazi Germany, which intern eroded the humanity of the people that led to the genocide of millions. This premise has no bases; it’s simply pulled out of the air, from a random and inhumane moral standard. My cynical predisposition suspects the journal printed the article just to get attention. It’s scary to think that it could be granted credibility by a population of medical professionals. If it is allowed to be accepted, the progression is very predictable. Next old people with diminished awareness will be labeled as previous persons, people with mental illness will be labeled non persons, etc., until ethnic or social groups are segregated and dehumanized. We only have to go back 60 years to witness firsthand the effects of this ludicrous social course on a large modern population… very scary indeed.
Stephanie Robbins-They don't need to keep their children, there are many out there like us, that want children but the government makes it so difficult to adopt! Adoption is not as easy as people think it is, try it, then you'll know why.
This is the next logical step for people who do not value human life, next it will be stated that you can kill your child up until they utter their first true words. Why are we so surprised?
Well I really cannot articulate how disgusting this is, and it is from a journal of medicine? Notice how everyone who wants to kill baby's was giving the chance of life that they do not want to share.
This is the next logical step for people who do not value human life, next it will be stated that you can kill your child up until they utter their first true words. Why are we so surprised?
I seen this article the other day and I cannot describe the complete disgust and horror that I felt upon reading this. This is the slippery slope that we are currently sliding down. May God have mercy on us!
Be very afriad of these researchers in medical and bio ethics. Have you seen this movie? (Never Let Me Go) It is fiction, but it is a scary thought indeed particularly near the end when we find out that utlimately it doesn't matter how human you are or whether or not you have a soul.
It seems that those who advocated determining the 'quality of life' for the elderly have now decided that they know who will or will not be a quality person by just looking at the newborn infant..
This isn't any different than the partial birth abortions that Clinton signed in..not sure if it is still allowed now or not. I cant stand the inhumane ignorance of people like this. Its groups like these that gets bills passed, where even an eagle egg or feather is of more value than human life. Someone explain that to me. Murderers!
Its an academic journal article promoting THOUGHT. As mentioned below, Swift's "A Modest Proposal" suggests a similar idea, but is a work of satire. We are only as civilized as much as we allow discourse. They are not advocating the idea of infanticide, but rather provoking debate on both sides. It's science.
Kill newborn babies because they don’t have the “same moral standing as actual persons?” I would say that a newborn has a PURE moral standing and that they are "actual persons". I would say that the author of such a barbaric theory has no moral standing in a civil society. This is akin to those in some countries who murder their baby girls as they feel they have less value than a male child. This is purely the musings of someone who is a sociopath.