Ethics philosophers argue for ‘after-birth abortion’ of babies

5 (100%) 3 votes

We were warned about the slippery slope of legalizing abortion.

Legalizing abortion has already led to legalizing euthanasia, euphemistically called “physician-assisted suicide”.

The latest in the slippery slope is a call for infanticide.

In an article, “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?,” published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics, two philosophers propose that mothers should have the right to kill their newborn, which the two philosophers call “after-birth abortion”. The two authors are:

  • Alberto Giubilini, who was at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, Australia, and is now a post-doctoral research fellow at the Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, England.
  • Francesca Minerva, who was at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Australia, and is now a post-doc research fellow at the University of Ghent, Belgium.

Here is the article’s 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.

The authors begin their article by arguing that “the same conditions that would have justified abortion,” such as Down’s syndrome and other severe mental and/or physical impairments, should also be “applied to killing a newborn human” because “children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.”

But the authors then go further, arguing that even if severely disabled children are happy, they should be “aborted” after birth because of the problems they create for the mothers and for society:

[H]aving a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children,1 regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself….

[T]o bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

Playing word games, the authors say they eschew calling “after-birth abortion” either “infanticide” or “euthanasia” because “the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child,” and because “the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.”

In short, the authors justify “after-birth abortion” on the grounds that the newborn infant is just like the unborn fetus in that “neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense” because neither has “the potentiality to become a person” in the sense of forming any future aims.

By “person” the authors 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.”

By that definition, “many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons,” but newborns and fetuses are not persons because they “are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence”. At best, newborns and fetuses are only “potential persons”, which means that the interests of “actual people” (parents, family, society), no matter how weak their interests, always “over-ride” the interest of “merely potential people”. The latter “cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence” because the interest of non-persons “amounts to zero”.

Giublini and Minerva even argue against adoption of unwanted newborns if the mothers could be “damaged” by giving up their newborns for adoption.

The authors do allow that since newborns and fetuses are “only capable of experiencing pain and pleasure,” they “have a right not to be inflicted pain.”

How humane and generous of Giubilini and Minerva. /Sarc

As to how old a newborn would be when killing him/her is no longer “permissible”, Giublini and Minerva refuse to specify. Instead, they leave the cut-off threshold open-ended. In their words:

[W]e do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

You can read their short article here.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, a professor of practical ethics at the University of Oxford, said the article had “elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety”. He said some of comments included:

“These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society.”

“Right now I think these two devils in human skin need to be delivered for immediate execution under their code of ‘after birth abortions’ they want to commit murder – that is all it is! MURDER!!!”

“The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier”

“Alberto Giubilini looks like a muslim so I have to agree with him that all muslims should have been aborted. If abortion fails, no life at birth – just like he wants.”

Savulescu defended Giubilini and Minerva on the grounds that their arguments are not new and in the interest of academic freedom. He said:

“The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide … but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands…. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

See also “Celebrated moral philosopher Peter Singer: It’s okay to rape the mentally disabled”.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

34 responses to “Ethics philosophers argue for ‘after-birth abortion’ of babies

  1. I’m not a person who easily sheds a tear, but this, this made me cry.

     
  2. I felt physically ill when I read this.

     
  3. This is concrete proof of how this happens. First abortion was “Unthinkable”. Now it is a “woman’s right”. Here too we have “it isn’t infanticide….”. Really, how’s that. Why babies aren’t living humans, they are potential “unbearable burden”.

    This is what you get with Nihilists. For them there is no God, therefore there is no sacred. Human life is merely entertaining or a burden. This “person” has no rights of his or her own.

    I would not want to know these people. I don’t care whether some other misguided, ungodly country allows this or not. That is a different, but related, subject. Why would someone look to The State for moral guidance?

    So after all these centuries of prayer and growth we have come to a point where people no longer know what sex they are and can’t understand the sanctity of life. And they call this “progress”.

     
  4. Well Well….these “authors” were probably influenced politically, morally and legally by the success of their adored spiritual leader, Barack Insane Obama, who, as an Illinois legistlator (famously or infamously) voted AGAINST regulating late term abortions AND against humane life support for “born-alive” late term abortion surviving babies, because it would “negate the right of the mother’s original intent and “right to choose” abortion.” What a PUTZ. I will support “after birth abortion” if Obama is aborted FIRST. Let his crazies follow through on their “ethics philosophies” first: let’s get rid of all and any people of any age or ability/disability who cause” problems for their mothers and society.” IMO, that would include a tonnage of leftest POLITICIANS and associates.

     
  5. Leftists like killing inconvenient people. They always end up there.

     
    • “Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”
      –George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470

       
  6. Right off the bat those two homicidal monsters mention that infant euthanasia has been promoted by “philosophers,”which is hardly surprising considering the socio-sexually dysfunctional type dominating the field today, and one of the two referenced by them turns out to be Princeton’s Peter Singer, the rootless cosmopolitan who’s championed by globalist elites for saying, as I recall, that grown animals deserve more rights than newborn humans. So not much new to see here except two self-promoting turds in the punch bowl with unmerited credentials (based on their writing) who’d better hope that after the shtf they’re not shown the respect of being judged by their own monstrous values.

     
  7. Disgusting. Just repulsive.

     
  8. Too bad these people’s mothers were pro-life.

     
  9. Aah liberal thinking at its finest. Once again, they never see the inconsistencies of their own ideas. Monsters indeed, Satan’s spawn.

     
  10. I read this argument before when it was applied from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler terminating homosexuals, political opponents, mentally ill, physically disabled, etc in his search/justification for the perfect race. Apparently these philosophers/ethicists know nothing of history and the slippery slope they are on.

     
  11. What Guibilini & Minerva propose is nothing new: I remember hearing IN 1970 that some “ethicists” and “professors in medical school” recommended that parents ought to be legally permitted to euthanize their “deformed” or “handicapped” children up to age three for basically the same reasons these TWO GOONS propose.

    But enough of the outrage—we’re all outraged. (And, YES, I’ve known a number of Orthodox Jews, when I was teaching, who were outraged at the matter of abortion). We have got to remember a few salient things:
    First: He who controls the language—the acceptable words, terms and phrases—controls the debate. We who lean conservative have GOT TO GETH THROUGH OUR THICK SKULLS that it is WE who have been programmed to be cuckolded or “cucked.” We MUST understand the origins and ideology behind British Eugenics, because THIS is the poisoned root that gave way to everything from Margaret Sanger and The Third Reich TO DATE.
    Second: Included in the first caveat is the FACT that, somewhere (early on) along the line, Karl Marx’s ideology was READILY ACCEPTED in academia and in revolutionary political activity. We MUST LEARN that in Marxism, the ruling elites made a switch, and they accepted SOCIOLOGICAL MAN for MORAL MAN. THIS is the reason why this has had a stranglehold on Western Civilization for over 100 years! Marx, Lenin & Trotsky, on one “branch” of the divide had their identity politics the Democratic Party has fine-tuned since LBJ. It was THEY who defined the language—its terms, buzzwords and phrases. THIS is why we’ve been on a losing streak. On another branch we have sociologists e.g., Emile Durkheim, C. Wright Mills and others who acted as go-betweens to condition American academia AND American business to the corporate-communist blend that suited the tastes of the American oligarchy.
    Third: We must accept—as unpleasant fact—that Catholicism, true religion that it may be (up to John XXIII and following) was cucked in the same way the conservative movement was cucked. We must accept that it is WE who must “resist”—first and foremost by being as well-informed as we possibly can be. One thing cab driving has taught me more than teaching is learning how to listen to people—and how to talk to them, also. I WILL NOT ALLOW a leftist to bring me over into his camp. I WILL NOT ALLOW them to win an argument, for the simple reasons that, 1) I’m too old to give a damn, and, 2) I have just as much pride in my position as they do theirs. (More, actually, because, unlike these little lugubrious leftist lemmings of doom, I KNOW what I believe, and I know WHY I believe it. IT IS THIS attitude that wins the day and not an arguing back and forth like two lumberjacks trying to saw a tree down!!!)

    I could go on and on. But suffice it to say that, Fourth, we HAVE GOT TO MOBILIZE. And the best way to do that is to utilize social media to push our sites, e.g., FOTM, Alex Jones, the Hagmanns, David Icke, et al. We have got to STUDY the internet while we still have it. Because some day, Donald Trump will be gone. SO: Do we on the right ever learn??? Do we spread the message??? Do we actually have the attitude toward the left that, Why, Yes, as a matter of fact, you ARE wrong? Because when it comes to matters of life and death, the left is the BEEHIVE OF MADNESS. It is WE who are the Oasis of Sanity! DON’T LET THE LEFT WIN AN ARGUMENT! DARE TO OFFEND AND PISS PEOPLE OFF!!

    Otherwise, if we don’t go on the offensive, we shall never win.

     
  12. I think we should apply the same standards to “ethics philosophers”.

     
  13. Start with THEM.

     
  14. Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

     
  15. Somebody should abort these two.

     
  16. Did it occur to any of you that this paper, with its reprehensible proposition and argument, may have been written to foster this debate?

    No, probably not. It is far easier to just feel and react, than it is to think.

    -C

     
    • Did it occur to you that the comments here indeed are thoughts, and that you are being condescendingly presumptious?

       
  17. A phenomenal evil persistently and relentlessly grinds away at all that is good on this planet. It incrementally pushes for power and control.

    Our ‘push-back’ is faltering and needs to be dramatically increased to the point of actual pain for the evil-doers, in concert with GOD’S law and regardless of man’s law.

     
  18. Look…I’m a MAGA-head all the way. And I think abortion is murder MOST foul. However, to claim that “Legalizing abortion has already led to legalizing “physician-assisted suicide,” seems pretty disingenuous. The two don’t seem to be at all related, in the sense of causality. Dems just worship killing!

     
    • to claim that “Legalizing abortion has already led to legalizing “physician-assisted suicide,” seems pretty disingenuous.

      It’s all consistent with the Culture of Death. Once the sanctity of human life is breached, then anything is permissible.

       
  19. Kevin J Lankford

    I can remember as long as 25 years or more, when abortion was brought up I would often make the poor joke of, one believes abortion is a right, why not allow the mother to wait even 18 years to decide? In case they just don’t turn out they way they want. Of course I was only being sarcastic, and I would get the shaking heads and rolling eyes as one might expect from such absurdity.

    One would think such an absurd notion could never be taken seriously.

     
  20. So life is determined by value? Does this mean a person who built a company, which employs 1,500 people, has served on a school board and provides hearing aids for the elderly on a fixed income is more valuable than, say, 2 ethics professors? Who determines worth and value? Who decides what is suffering and what is not?

     
  21. I think it only prudent for these two,Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva,to put themselves on the line and be aborted forthwith. Do they not realize that they’re endorsing making MURDER legal? How in God’s name can they say a newborn baby isn’t yet a person? Well,okay-they’ve had their 5 minutes of fame;now they can be properly disposed of;they,as “people”,have less worth to the world than ANY of the ACTUAL people they propose legalizing the KILLING of. They deserve NO acknowledgement beyond what they’ve had so far.

     
  22. with any luck their parents will preform an “after birth abortion” on them immediately. more so-called scientific individuals that have wasted someone else’s money on an ethics degree who have no ethics themselves. it is sad that these people might one day or currently are teaching others what they believe.

     
  23. Pingback: Democrats introduce House bill calling abortion a human right - Fellowship Of The Minds

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *