Australian bioethicists advocate infanticide

  • Thread starter Thread starter sw85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sw85

Guest
I wish I was kidding:
Code: 
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.
Click to expand...
Code: 
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that **in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”**
Click to expand...
Code: 
The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that 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.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.
Click to expand...
The world is lost.
 
They are not Australians, they are Italians. If you were familiar with the Italian political lingo you would have guessed that immediately from the creation of the after-birth abortion terminology. In Italian we call it “rigirarsi la frittata” (flipping the omelette) and it is used to express a change in the terminology to make your case. These people are the children of the children of 60’s. I am not surprised to read so much garbage in the article, there is nothing really intellectual about the whole concept wrong assumptions, very basic logic, wrong conclusions. Logical argumentation is like software, garbage in → garbage out.
 
DCNBILL said:
It was only a matter of time. :sad_yes: Next they will be proposing upping the age at which you can kill your child just in case they do not turn out as you wish them to.😦
Click to expand...
Well that is somehow what they have in the Netherlands. I think that you can euthanize a child up to the age of 13 if the child cannot show proof of even limited independent living. I do not remember the details of the law but it has been in the books for a few years.
 
It looks like the culture of death, with Satan’s lead, wants only selected unborns which are perfect physically and meet their guidelines which will only serve their purposes until they are say 35 years old or younger and definitely no one over 45. This looks like their world vision- only the selected young and perfect. What a terrible situation, and people are allowing this to happen.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
Any way this was satirical? (hopefully)
Click to expand...
The article is sadly true. If you look at the trends/schools of bio-ethics in Italy you would really worry. Even some members of the Catholic bio-medical institutions say and do the most immoral things. The Catholic University in Italy is forcing its students to take classes in theology and basic bio-ethics for those in the field but the total lack of catechesis for most of the students is probably going to defeat the purpose.
 
Cristiano said:
The article is sadly true. If you look at the trends/schools of bio-ethics in Italy you would really worry. Even some members of the Catholic bio-medical institutions say and do the most immoral things. The Catholic University in Italy is forcing its students to take classes in theology and basic bio-ethics for those in the field but the total lack of catechesis for most of the students is probably going to defeat the purpose.
Click to expand...
:(:signofcross:

So sad.
 
Very unfortunate =(
I’ve heard a few stories like that in recent times. Frankly, I’m disgusted.
 
There will come a day when Christians are asked to put their lives on the line to defend the rights of young children and the unborn, and I fear that many will be asked to give up their lives for the sake of these now undefended children.

-Tim-
 
The pro-infanticide article and the defense from Savulescu come only months after a Canadian judge employed similar arguments in the process of handing out a lenient sentence to a mother who strangled her newborn and threw him over a fence.
Click to expand...
Savluescu, the director of the Center for Practical Ethics at Oxford University, has made the news in the past for arguing that the requirement for organ donors to be dead at the time of organ harvesting should be removed, and that “mandatory” organ donation should be instituted. He has also argued that humanity has a “moral obligation” to use in vitro fertilization (IVF) to select the most intelligent embryos for the good of society.
Click to expand...
I can only imagine that Savulescu has an emotional imbalance, to put things lightly.
 
sw85 said:
I wish I was kidding:

The world is lost.
Click to expand...
I agree with their argument.

I) A fetus in the womb is a child.

II)It is acceptable to kill a fetus

Thusproved it is acceptable to kill a child.

This is a perfectly valid logical conclusion for the premises.
The problem is that I believe premise 2 to be wrong, but if it is legal for one it ought to be legal for the other.
 
Inego_de_Loyola said:
I agree with their argument.

I) A fetus in the womb is a child.

II)It is acceptable to kill a fetus

Thusproved it is acceptable to kill a child.

This is a perfectly valid logical conclusion for the premises.
The problem is that I believe premise 2 to be wrong, but if it is legal for one it ought to be legal for the other.
Click to expand...
At first I thought the news article was a joke, a joke showing how ridiculous the argument supporting valid abortion is.
 
I have heard of such things happening in the United States – healthy newborn infants being intentionally killed or left somewhere such that their death is guaranteed. I did not imagine it was widespread or that it would soon be institutionalized.

I suppose these are the perils of delegating moral authority to a professional, bureaucratic class of ethicist eggheads, most of whom are no doubt palpable misfits leading grossly disordered lives. When, Lord, will we stop consenting to let these degenerates run society for us?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top