Killing Newborns no different than Abortion?

[Shermana]

Says Oxford University "Experts".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html

Do these "experts" represent some of the current authority of "Civilization"?

Do Newborns not have a "moral right to life>"

Should parents be able to have their newborn killed if it turns out to be disabled? If so, to what degree of disablement? Should they have the right to kill it for reasons other than disablement?

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.

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�.

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.

Is the article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics making a valid point?

Does the "very idea of a Liberal Society" thus involve the option for mothers to snuff out the life of newborns (as opposed to ones in the womb)?

Are the ones making violent threats to the writers "opposed to the very values of a liberal society" or is this a sort of straw man?

Is this just an attempt by Britain's academic Elite to justify infanticide? Is it immoral what they are saying? Is it moral? Is there a value judgment to be had here? Are these "experts" out of line or do they have a point?

Do you agree that killing newborn babies is no different than killing them in the womb?

At what age is the baby no longer a newborn and, according to these "experts" no longer be considered of no consequence to put to death?

[Moses Yoder]

According to science, we are just animals here by some chance. I bought my wife a hedgehog for Christmas, and we looked into breeding them but then found out some of the problems and decided against it. A lot of animals eat their young, so I would be in favor of allowing the mother or father to eat the newborn baby. That would be scientifically accurate.

I don't believe it is ever okay to threaten somebody with death just because we don't agree with their view point. Even though animals do that, I don't actually consider myself to be just an animal.

[Bust Nak]

According to science, we are just animals here by some chance.

Well science classify us as animals, that much is true, but it doesn't say we are "just" animals. Whether you think this take away the meaning of people's life depends on your perspective; I don't think being an animal devalue my worth in anyway.

A lot of animals eat their young, so I would be in favor of allowing the mother or father to eat the newborn baby. That would be scientifically accurate.

Many animals eat their young is scientifically accurate; That you should be in favor of allowing animals to eat their young is not scientifically accurate.

I don't believe it is ever okay to threaten somebody with death just because we don't agree with their view point. Even though animals do that, I don't actually consider myself to be just an animal.

Well some human believe it is okay to threaten people with death for disagreeing, do you consider youself to be just a human?

[McCulloch]

According to science, we are just animals here by some chance.

OK, we agree. According to biology, the science of life, humans are animals.

I don't believe it is ever okay to threaten somebody with death just because we don't agree with their view point. Even though animals do that, I don't actually consider myself to be just an animal.

I know of no animal other than humans that kill for ideological reasons. Do you? You should not consider yourself just an animal. You are an animal that belongs to the most intelligent known species of social animal.

[Moses Yoder]

According to science, we are just animals here by some chance.

OK, we agree. According to biology, the science of life, humans are animals.

I don't believe it is ever okay to threaten somebody with death just because we don't agree with their view point. Even though animals do that, I don't actually consider myself to be just an animal.

I know of no animal other than humans that kill for ideological reasons. Do you? You should not consider yourself just an animal. You are an animal that belongs to the most intelligent known species of social animal.

In a house my in-laws bought hung a mount of 2 very big 8 point deer with their antlers interlocked. They had apparently been fighting and got their antlers locked in such a way that they couldn't pull them apart, and the former owner of the house found them that way dead in a swamp. This is pretty conclusive evidence that deer fight, along with videos I have seen of deer fighting. Usually one deer fights with another for territory or mates. So one deer has the idea he want's the other one's harem, and they fight over that idea. Is that not an ideological battle?

Funny thing is, the animal kingdom could easily survive on it's own, no deficit, very little harmful pollution, balances population to environment, etc. So who's to say we're smart?

[McCulloch]

According to science, we are just animals here by some chance.

OK, we agree. According to biology, the science of life, humans are animals.

I don't believe it is ever okay to threaten somebody with death just because we don't agree with their view point. Even though animals do that, I don't actually consider myself to be just an animal.

I know of no animal other than humans that kill for ideological reasons. Do you? You should not consider yourself just an animal. You are an animal that belongs to the most intelligent known species of social animal.

In a house my in-laws bought hung a mount of 2 very big 8 point deer with their antlers interlocked. They had apparently been fighting and got their antlers locked in such a way that they couldn't pull them apart, and the former owner of the house found them that way dead in a swamp. This is pretty conclusive evidence that deer fight, along with videos I have seen of deer fighting. Usually one deer fights with another for territory or mates. So one deer has the idea he want's the other one's harem, and they fight over that idea. Is that not an ideological battle?

Maybe it is where you come from, but where I come from, "I want to breed with your mate" is not a statement of ideology.

Deer fight. Humans fight. Deer fight over the right to mate, usually not fatally, although in your example, it was accidentally fatal. Humans fight. Humans have fought and deliberately killed over whether the god is one or three. Human warfare is always deliberately fatal.

Funny thing is, the animal kingdom could easily survive on it's own, no deficit, very little harmful pollution, balances population to environment, etc. So who's to say we're smart?

Did I say smart? I said intelligent. Not always the same thing.

[Moses Yoder]

The #1 definition of ideology according to dictionary.com.

the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

It does not say that the doctrines, myths, belief etc. are limited to humans. In fact, I think you would have to work pretty hard to prove that animals do not have doctrines, myths, and beliefs, especially considering the fact that according to modern science humans are animals. Maybe the doctrines and beliefs of deer and hedgehogs are not as advanced yet. A deer staking out territory and claiming it as his own would be considered a belief, for example. He believes he has the right to that territory, and will defend that doctrine to the death, the same way men do.

[Haven]

Honestly, I find the fact that academics (ethical philosophers, no less) are seriously considering the killing of babies permissible deeply disturbing on so many levels. This honestly sounds like something a sociopath would put forward, not something any rational human being would devise.

Yes, newborn babies have the right to live simply because they are human beings. All human beings have the right to life.

[AdHoc]

Says Oxford University "Experts".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html

Do these "experts" represent some of the current authority of "Civilization"?

Do Newborns not have a "moral right to life>"

Should parents be able to have their newborn killed if it turns out to be disabled? If so, to what degree of disablement? Should they have the right to kill it for reasons other than disablement?

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.

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�.

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.

Is the article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics making a valid point?

Does the "very idea of a Liberal Society" thus involve the option for mothers to snuff out the life of newborns (as opposed to ones in the womb)?

Are the ones making violent threats to the writers "opposed to the very values of a liberal society" or is this a sort of straw man?

Is this just an attempt by Britain's academic Elite to justify infanticide? Is it immoral what they are saying? Is it moral? Is there a value judgment to be had here? Are these "experts" out of line or do they have a point?

Do you agree that killing newborn babies is no different than killing them in the womb?

At what age is the baby no longer a newborn and, according to these "experts" no longer be considered of no consequence to put to death?

I guess if we follow the logic and leading of the abortion movement there would be several key steps to open the way for infantcide.

1) First of all, don't call it infantcide that sounds like killing call it something else that can't be confused with killing, something that sounds like a procedure. Latin is a good place to start... how about "peractioinfans"?

2) Never call it an infant, a baby or a child. Come up with a scientific term that seems to suggest that its not human... lets call them "artigenitos"

3) Make sure you don't show pictures of how they cute are. Refer to them as uncommunicative tissue blobs.

4) Brand anyone that speaks up for them as "anti-choice"... especially the men. Find the lunatic fringe within the anti-choice movement and highlight them. Making them seem like the norm will discredit the people that share their opinion. Within the arena of public opinion logical fallacies are the weapons of choice and so this will effectively discredit their arguments.

5) Stop any debate in its tracks by immediately taking the discussion to the extremes... What if the artigenitos has some terrible highly communicable disease that could kill the whole family? What if it was the result of rape? You get the idea.

Myself, I think it would be wrong to kill artigenitos, but my opinion only matters if I can find 50+1% of the population to agree with me.

Fun fact, check out what evidence the scientific community bases their definition of death on. Some organ donar "volunteers" have gotten to experience that up close and personal. No one is speaking up for those people either.

[Euphrates]

How is this about Christianity? How is this apologetics?

[Mr. LongView]

Seems like a terrible waste?
Perhaps we should recycle these diseased undesirables.

Soylent Green is tiny (deformed) people! ](*,)

Seems like crazy talk to me.

Welcome to the future?