Journal of Medical Ethics Says Newborn Babies not People, Can be Killed

Giubilini

And why not? If we go on defining human life down, we’ll end up determining that anyone can be killed at any time in the name of the greater good.

That’s where this road of warped ethics inevitably leads.

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.

You know, if you’re going to call for murdering babies, maybe you need to drop the “Ethics” part. If you’re going to be the worst people in the world, at least stop calling your behavior ethical.

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”.

Apparently the values of a liberal society involve killing newborn babies. And if that’s so, is it fanatical to be opposed to killing newborn babies or is it fanatical to advocate killing them?

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.

They argued: “The 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.”

Perhaps a study can be done which would discuss the moral status of people who deny the right of infants to live.

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

Call it the Fetusization of babies.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded 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”.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Wendy Davis would be proud.

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” – a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

No, the society we live on should urge the murder of infants based on the moral certainity of ethical professionals such as these.

 

  • maidros

    The T4 programme would be so proud. We should immediately restart the Lebensunwertes Leben programme, and put these gentlemen in charge of it. How long do you think before we rack up a higher infant body count than the Third Reich?

  • S7teen70six

    It’s rare that I am actually shocked by something I read. This is one of those incidents. It’s been apparent to me for some time now that the moral compass of our society has degraded steadily. This, however, is hitting rock bottom.

  • LindaRivera

    ‘Journal of Medical Ethics Says Newborn Babies not People, Can be Killed’

    I suggest that this filthy Journal gives its CORRECT name:
    The devil’s Servants/MURDER Incorporated.

  • tedc41

    Why settle for a partial identification of “BioEthics,” and “Post-Natal” abortion. Get the whole story, in: A Culture of Death by Wesley Smith. Obamacare is a reincarnation of eugenics, in an effort to make Socialism survive and enable tottal social control. Mass. medical system of Insurance comes from BioEthics. BioEthics is taught in almost every medical school in the world. Most medical colleges have a department of BioEthics. “Medical Ethics” Is BioEthics. So are “death panels.”

  • unionville

    “We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

    If this is to be the yardstick by which one determines life can continue, why stop at newborn?

    • theBuckWheat

      We have been down this same road before. My parents’ generation had to go to war to stop the madness when it became a core value of the National SOCIALISTS in Germany in the 1930′s. The creation of the nation of Israel was justified in part because an extension of this same mindset concluded that Jews were not persons. The National SOCIALISTS in Germany set into motion an industrial-scale effort to murder every Jew they could get their hands on.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Notice how they used the “her” pronoun instead of “his.” Even in their depravity they cant give up their political correctness. If babies really were “potential persons” the pronoun should have been “its.” These “people” are fanatics and they are evil. Not even Hitler could have made an argument this vile.

  • jakespoon

    Evil. That explains it all, nothing to deep about it. It doesn’t matter a whit how it is explained,it is evil. If this is their “ethics”, they’re evil in their heart. Priest of Molech.

  • trickyblain

    In all fairness, this article — published in early 2012 — was condemned among all rational people, left right and center. It should also be noted that it has nothing to do with “our” society as Americans…unless “our” society is 10,000 miles away. It was written in Australia by two Australian “academics.”

    • RCraigen

      Australia? Both authors are Italian. The first holds an appointment at the University of Turin. The controversy that ensued in the Italian press in 2012 was characterized by the journal in a follow-up piece as a “Catholic” backlash and tut-tutted as religious dogmatism. Don’t expect any “rational people” connected with Planned Parenthood to condemn the piece. Uh, except, ok — this presumes that there are “rational people” connected with Planned Parenthood. Point taken. But there was, at least, one countervailing viewpoint published in the journal by one who claimed to present a “pro-choice response” to the authors. Would you count Obama as “rational”? He famously voted as an Illinois senator against a bill to protect newborns from precisely this kind of threat.

      How can you say this had “nothing to do with ‘our’ society as Americans” on the basis that it was written by two scholars overseas (again, ITALY, not AUSTRALIA, mate!)? You evidently don’t “swim” in academia. There are no national boundaries in such discussions.

      The authors are colleagues of the editor of the journal in question. From the journal’s self-description: “To ensure international relevance JME has an Editorial Advisory Board from all around the world.” And the subsequent discussion about that paper in that journal has been participated in by prominent scholars, including a number of Americans who write on such matters.

      Welcome to the 21st Century.

      • trickyblain

        I find Planned Parenthood’s political extremism repellent. In terms of Obama’s Illinois vote, he has never hidden his support of abortion, but has never indicated support for infanticide. His statement in voting against the bill:

        “Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”

        There are those who consider any abortion infantcide. There are those who consider late-term abortions infanticide. There are mercifully few who consider killing a baby outside of the womb as anything but murder.

        Point taken regarding academia and no borders/western society (though I did read in multiple places that the authors were Australian, but it’s really irrelevant). That said, it’s highly doubtful that a significant percentage of our society would agree with the premise of replacing the word “infanticide” with “after-birth abortion.”

        • RCraigen

          Thanks for the even-toned response, @trickyblain:disqus, and I feel I must apologize for my one nasty jab. While I sense we differ on much of this subject I am always happy to meet one with whom I can respectfully disagree, that’s a bit too rare on the abortion issue. Regardless of how Obama articulated his position, fortunately most of his Democrat colleagues disagreed with him in that vote. His has always been on the far pro-choice end of the spectrum, and more so than any American president thus far. While I am very much pro-life, most of the American public sit somewhere in the middle, preferring strict controls on abortion after the first trimester, but accepting open access prior to that point. This puts even Obama’s carefully modulated statement that you cite above well out of the mainstream American view.

        • ziggy zoggy

          ickybrain,
          why am I not surprised that you would defend these monsters? Thank the God you don’t believe in that I don’t know where you are hiding.

  • UCSPanther

    Amelia Dyer would be proud:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Dyer

  • Toni_Pereira

    George Santayana was right all along.Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

  • NAHALKIDES

    And here we see why Libertarianism must fail as a political philosophy – it has no answer as to why the killing of infants is wrong. Only Conservatism, imbued by a moral philosophy with the belief in the value of every individual human life, can fight against the cultural Leftism of which this is a particularly disturbing example.

  • Crazycatkid

    I have two responses to this “ethical” view. First, why be upset at death threats when it’s just someone like them deciding to end a life they do not value. It’s the same as killing a baby not valued.
    Secondly, if their definition of what makes an individual have a right to life then we can murder everyone on government assistance.
    (Humor……but Hmmmmm)

  • Marylou

    Why are they omitting depraved lefty professors from their indecent proposal? How can they be “persons” in the “morally relevant sense” when they have neither morals nor sense, nor, as some would argue, relevance?

  • Naresh Krishnamoorti

    The easiest way to prove that these depraved monsters, like Peter Singer, are motivated by nothing other than the hatred of man is to notice that they argue against the killing of animals even though animals are incapable of “attributing to [their] own existence some basic value.”
    These people are not motivated by “philosophic truth,” as they claim. If they were, they would not be so blatantly inconsistent and illogical.

  • Peter Holiday

    People who advocate the elective killing any human form, especially totally innocent babies, cannot reasonably, even sanely, associate themselves with the words “ethics” or “morals”. This article is the HITLARIAN expectorations of a wizened narcissism.

  • Not Me

    That photo is of Australian journalist Andrew Bolt!

  • Robert

    All liberal politicians and doctors should be killed for the common good.

  • JohnDale49

    What a piece of s7it

  • simplynotred

    It is very easy to throw a Stupid Journal Article into the Circular File. Besides who listens to Italian Ethicist who call babies fetuses anymore. From these idiots perspective, a 12 month old baby is no different than a 10 year old child, which eventually leads to being no different than a 30 year old woman. The real reason behind all this killing is Eugenics and Depopulation.

    When does the desire to kill stop for this Extremely Insane “DEATH COMMUNITY?” I believe we have reached the era when those who promote any form of Eugenics should be shot, and deposited on the side of the road in black plastic bags the way they dispose of wild dogs in Russia, so that this Death Community can finally be brought to a conclusive end.

  • dan

    These same people cried in anger at murder of innocent in war .The bible says in the last day before Jesus returns the heart of people in this world will turn Cold and unloving . Killing babies is about as cold as one can get .

  • falling321

    How selfish, how immoral, would a mother and/or father have to be to insist upon killing their newborn child rather than giving it up for adoption?

  • finishstrongdoc

    I really wonder sometimes if people know why that Lady holds that Lamp so high, or even why she holds it at all.

  • Lukala

    If you want your comments to have an impact, please address your comments to the author and their respective universities. These current comments are only seen by the author of this commentary. Here is the contact information for the authors:
    Correspondence to

    Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE,

    University of Melbourne,

    Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia;

    francesca.minerva@unimelb.

    edu.au

    Correspondence to

    Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE,

    University of Melbourne,

    Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia;

    francesca.minerva@unimelb.

    edu.au

    Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE,

    University of Melbourne,

    Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia;

    francesca.minerva@unimelb.

    edu.au

  • ziggy zoggy

    Right. The imagined “genocide” of baby killers is bad but killing babies is good because “they are not actual (sic) persons” and do not have “a moral right to life.” Murdering “potential persons” is an ethical value of a liberal society.

    The only “abortion” that should be legal is retroactive abortion. Savulescu (a direct relative of Dracula,) Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva should all prove the strength of their convictions and abort themselves.
    If anybody deserves to have their addresses displayed online, it’s these monsters.

  • Hawkdriver1961

    The Bible nailed it about these people and the times inwhich we live. Look up and be of good cheer, for our salvation draws near.

  • Jacqueline Hancock

    Where is the link to the original article please?

  • Jacqueline Hancock

    I wonder if the Rothschilds and Rockerfellars would put their lineage on the line since they put so much money into supporting eugenics.

  • Martin

    These people must have had a reason for the decision. If you explored their thought process or even approached the idea of why they made this decision, I might agree with you. But I don’t know why they made the decision. I can only speculate. This article was very sensationalized. I’m off to find an article where i can learn about the decision and the aspects of the issue they took into consideration, and form my opinion based on the facts of the verdict.

  • Stephen

    I would not base my opinions of this verdict from this article. It’s very opinionated and seems to hold very little facts about why the decision was made. The members of the Journal of Medical Ethics are people who have dedicated their lives to a profession and probably don’t want their records tarnished. I don’t think they would make the such an unpopular decision without being sure they thought it was right.