Medical Journal: Legalize ‘After-Birth Abortions’, ‘Infants Are Not People’

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
(I am not sure if this belongs here but imo it certainly is a social issue, but anyway if it doesn't belong here please mods move it to appropiate forum.)

It seems that after the desensitization of so many people has been sucessful, making people believe that "a fetus is not a developing person/individual", now some scientists are claiming that "newborn babies are not people, and it is ok to murder them"...


The Intel Hub
By Alexander Higgins
February 28, 2012

A paper recently published in the Journal of Medical Ethics says that parents should have the right to kill their newborn infants because infants are not people.

A paper in the The Journal of Medical Ethics, an international peer-reviewed journal for health professionals and researchers in medical ethics, argues that murdering newborn infants should be legalized.

The rational? “Infants are not people”.


After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?


Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) 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.

By Alberto Giubilini1, 2
and Francesca Minerva3,4Author Affiliations
1. Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

2. Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

3. Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

4. Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK


Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au

Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.

Source: Journal of Medical Ethics
...

theintelhub.com...

I guess everyone who has accepted, and believes that "a fetus is not an individual/person" are happy with this new "insight" from the mind of the most materialistic, and egotistical people living in this planet.

Soon enough many of those who accepted the devalue of life of a human fetus will also accept this new controversial view coming from the "pro-choice" crowd.

edit on 29-2-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
This is retarded, what kind of demon would come up with such trash and try to feed it to others? It's fcuking sickening.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaSynthesis
This is retarded, what kind of demon would come up with such trash and try to feed it to others? It's fcuking sickening.


This is part of the "depopulation scheme" by tptb.

People have been fed for so long the lie that "it's ok to murder a human fetus", and their brainwashing has worked so well that now they are moving their goal for the acceptance of the murder of born babies.

The fact that this sickening paper was accepted by a medical journal should speak volumes as to how low the medical establishment is willing to go for the sake of lies and for acceptance of the murder of innocent victims who don't have a voice of their own yet.

edit on 29-2-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

Maybe we just crashed the server of the link you posted. Sounds pretty awful stuff but then humans and often those in the military and medical and political professions sometimes, rarely, surprise me.
Shorter link that is working
It even has their email addresses listed.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
This is appalling news. Why limit it to fetuses? Whats next toddlers?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
This is appalling news. Why limit it to fetuses? Whats next toddlers?


The worse news is that a lot of people would readily accept this the second they learn of it, and more will accept it in the future, as these people get accostumed to this demented, irrational, and murderous view.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
This is SPARTA!!!



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


Yes, you are right, that server has crashed.

Anyway, here is another link to this appaling news.

www.lifenews.com...



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

Thanks for the link but I had already googled and seen it on other pages.

Euw...can you imagine to be the person that has to do that "job". I wonder how they propose to do it though? Drowning in buckets in the back room? A little gas chamber? Maybe just a good whack on the side of the head with a medical hammer? A nice peaceful injection perhaps?

I vote we test it on the Doctors who suggested it, just to make sure it works, then urinate over their corpses and tie them to the back of a Jeep and drag them through the city till there's nothing but rope left.

Oh dear, see what these ideas do to me? Brings out my inner Demon.
@ Australian murderous Doctors.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
While I certainly don't agree with their view, they do present a very interesting philosophical argument. They argue that a person is "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." In this case a newborn is equivalent to a fetus. They also argue that in many cases birth defects may not be detected or a family's situation may have changed and as a result it would be a burden to raise a child. If these defects had been detected or this changes had occurred earlier then there would be grounds for an abortion. Therefore, since a fetus and a newborn are morally equivalent one should be allowed to have an after-birth abortion if these circumstances arise at birth.

As I said I don't support their view. This is just a brief summary of the full article. Here is a link to it. I suggest reading as at the very least it does raise the interesting philosophical question of what constitutes a person.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Here are also responses by the editors regarding their decision to publish the article:

“Liberals Are Disgusting”: In Defence of the Publication of “After-Birth Abortion”
K enneth M Boyd - Handling Editor's Justification



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


You could always ask the Dutch. They have allowed infanticide since 2005 with the passing of the Groningen Protocol.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Absolutely sick and disgusting. Some countries are now refusing to give out the gender of the unborn child, because they're worried about the amount of abortions wanted by certain cultures, when the baby is female.

Now, a bunch of idiots decide that it's ok to kill babies?
Here comes even more genocidal deaths in those cultures.

Why would anyone publish such crap? Let alone think it.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 


The journal is a philosophical journal. Therefore, any article that presents a logical argument and presents it in a professional format is going to be published. To not publish it simply because it's controversial would be committing intellectual dishonesty and spit in the face of why professional journals are published in the first place. As the Handling Editor said, while he may not agree with the material it met all standards for being published and so he saw no reason for it not to be published. If a person can create a logical and rational counter-argument then that too can be published.
edit on 2/29/2012 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 

Wow! I did not know that but then I'm not really all that up on what happens here. Apparently it's been done 22 times between 1997 and 2004 (assuming we can trust the figures) so I would hazard a guess that it really is only for the extreme cases. Apparently they weren't all that good at testing (echography?) in the past or it wasn't a standard thing. Oh well, we live and learn. Thanks.
edit on 29/2/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Correction



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 




The journal is a philosophical journal. Therefore, any article that presents a logical argument and presents it in a professional format is going to be published. To not publish it simply because it's controversial would be committing intellectual dishonesty and spit in the face of why professional journals are published in the first place.


With any luck, it won't be talked about too much, and philosophical medical journals aren't easy reading, so maybe the whole thing will go largely un-noticed.

It's a slippery slope when developed babies aren't considered "persons", therefore are expendable. I don't know what the laws were years ago (less than a century), when black people, native indians, and women also weren't "persons", but I think it was ok to kill them too.


Plus, who decides when in the early development stage they become little "persons"?
I guess that would be another discussion......



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 


This article was actually quite an easy read. It also seems like many of the arguments against this article are also coming from people within the medical profession. So just because the article was published doesn't mean it's going to become a trend in medicine. These authors are simply taking arguments that philosophers have made for years and taken it a step further. The previous argument was that since there is ver little to distinguish between a newborn and a fetus that infanticide should be legal in cases of terminal illness. This is similar to the reasoning that went in to the Groningen Protocol. What the authors of this paper are asking is that if newborns are morally equivalent to fetuses and it is okay to kill them in cases of terminal illness then why not other circumstances that lead one to seek an abortion. So they weren't exactly breaking new ground with their premises.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I love how the thought process on this automatically either goes to "the lefties will LURVE this" or "it's an NWO plot to depopulate us all!" Ever thought that this was the work of a couple of pro-lifers, trying to turn the tables and "show how hypocritical and nasty those pro-choicers are"? No, couldn't be that the fact they're equating unborn babies with born ones smacks of the "personhood" philosophy. Couldn't be them trying to hold a mirror up to the arguments for why an unborn baby is okay to kill.



And the Groningen Protocol is not some "kill whatever babies you want" law, it's a law that allows HOPELESSLY suffering children under 12 to die by humane euthanasia (with severe ethical oversight). Not a gas chamber, not a "knock upside the head", but a choice that we should all hope to never have to face, and therefore not leap to vilify those who have made it for *their* children suffering in pain. These are not babies with cancer, they're babies with genetic deformations and conditions that literally make them hurt always, all the time. It's actually a pro-life law in the end, because those who are faced with prenatal tests saying their child will be born with an incurable and possibly horribly painful condition can go ahead with the choice to bring that child to full term and birth it, with the hope that maybe their child will be spared the suffering. If they have no option to end their child's unbearable suffering after they're born, then the parents are more likely to abort upon many of these diagnoses, giving the child zero chance of living.
edit on 29-2-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


I was in no way trying to vilify the Groningen Protocol. I was simply bringing it up as an example of state-sanctioned infanticide (euthanasia implies that the person has a choice in the matter). However, I don't believe this article is satirical in nature. They are using philosophies that already occur in the literature and expanding it to include all reasons that make a person eligible for an abortion. Now, even though it's not satirical whether the author's actually believe what they wrote is a different matter. This may have simply been a means to raise such questions within the bioethical community as they had not previously been asked.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Yes we're having quite a talk about it in this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

Its a different category though.

Baby murder IS AMORAL and should NOT be up to personal choice. And they're connected to Oxford so basically this is academia, and shows direction things are heading.

In fact I can't see how its even legal for them to say such a thing.

They called those who very upset "fanatics" For some of the day on my thread, people treated it as an abortion issue, but this involves babies who are born, and healthy as well as disabled. BOTH are protected by law.
edit on 1-3-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Nevermind
edit on 3/1/2012 by Charmed707 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join