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?

[AdHoc]

Now I'm even less clear of what you mean

I guess I am not sure where your confusion or uncomfortableness is coming from. I do know that human eggs need won't develop without a mother. So not sure why that question was asked. I thought it may have been because I talked about placing a egg next to a baby and you thought it was literal or something.

Ahh I understand what you meant, figuratively placing the egg next to the baby as opposed to an egg literally sitting next to a baby.

That wasn't what I was concerned about, I wanted to make clear that an egg on its own (in a womb or in a testube) will not develop into anything it must be fertilized first to develop into another human being.

I'm concerned about this because I have seen people assert that the "lifeform" (zygote,fetus, unborn child) in a mothers womb is somehow analogous to an unfertilized chicken egg or a pinecone.

[Serpent Oracle]

I agree it is no different from abortion, and that is why I am pro-life (anti-abortion). All human beings have the right to live.

I concur.

Lifestyle choice abortion makes a mockery of human rights.

Scientifically speaking, a human being or human is a living organism that foremost has a genetic configuration almost identical to that of any member of the Homo sapiens sapiens species, as well as almost identical physiologies and similar appearances, those with genetic abnomalities remain human in that if they did not have the abnomality they would have had a typical genetic structure.
It's age and/or developmental stage is irrelevant for purely biologic scientific purposes of identification.

Other definitions of a human being...are not scientific.

I have even heard of people trying to describe the fetus as a 'parasite'...an argument easily destroyed by science.

Usually they (definitions of humanity) are based on widely varying subjective values that legally speaking are very difficult to reconcile with the spirit of the law, the right to life and to live unmolested, for every human being.

[pappillion001]

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?

Did anyone bother to read the article? The focus is on newborns who are born with severe handicaps that were undetected during pregnancy. They are saying if it is permissible to abort a fetus because of some abnormality being identified during pregnancy then it should also be permitted if it is not discovered until the child is born.

You can make the leap that healthy normal children could fall into that grey area, and they do, but at least in the US we make a distinction at what point a healthy embryo can be aborted so under those circumstances I don't see how that would become an issue.

So the question becomes if a deformity or disease is sufficient grounds to abort a fetus is it sufficient grounds to terminate a newborn? The only difference being when the problem was discovered.

And they are suggesting that Doctors should be aware of any problems within the first few days

[Dantalion]

I find it completely abhorrent and uncivilized.
In the Torah, if someone killed an infant in the womb, God said the mother must be recompensed.

Now this will draw out the accusations, but I find it hypocritical that today women want the same thing, except if they decide to terminate an infant, it is not homicide, while if someone else does it, then the baby has rights and should be compensated if injured, or if killed, the mother should be compensated. The low value this society places on the lives of others is scary.

I would say the lives of others have, as far as I can tell, never been valued more in any dominant society other thn our own.
My personal view on this matter is that the only person whom it should concern what happens in her own body is the pregnant woman.
I could care less about what other people demand or forbid her to do.

[Serpent Oracle]

I find it completely abhorrent and uncivilized.
In the Torah, if someone killed an infant in the womb, God said the mother must be recompensed.

Now this will draw out the accusations, but I find it hypocritical that today women want the same thing, except if they decide to terminate an infant, it is not homicide, while if someone else does it, then the baby has rights and should be compensated if injured, or if killed, the mother should be compensated. The low value this society places on the lives of others is scary.

I would say the lives of others have, as far as I can tell, never been valued more in any dominant society other thn our own.
My personal view on this matter is that the only person whom it should concern what happens in her own body is the pregnant woman.
I could care less about what other people demand or forbid her to do.

Likewise I do not care about the mythical 'rights' of women allowing them to do what they want with humans gestating in their wombs, whom are not part of their bodies, hence the womb, amniotic fluid and placental cord which separates the two genetically discrete organisms.
Nor do I care about opinions such as yours...what I care about is what is and what isn't proscribed by LAW.

I put this to you.

If I deliberately stabbed a pregnant woman's body, in the abdomen, killing her unborn son would I not be deserving of a criminal charge of unlawful slaying/infanticide/murder?
As well as a charge of attempted murder against the woman?

Or are criminals permitted to kill fetuses as well in your world of 'rights'?

I find it amusing that an atheist subscribes to a line of reasoning based upon an article of faith....

[Dantalion]

I find it completely abhorrent and uncivilized.
In the Torah, if someone killed an infant in the womb, God said the mother must be recompensed.

Now this will draw out the accusations, but I find it hypocritical that today women want the same thing, except if they decide to terminate an infant, it is not homicide, while if someone else does it, then the baby has rights and should be compensated if injured, or if killed, the mother should be compensated. The low value this society places on the lives of others is scary.

I would say the lives of others have, as far as I can tell, never been valued more in any dominant society other thn our own.
My personal view on this matter is that the only person whom it should concern what happens in her own body is the pregnant woman.
I could care less about what other people demand or forbid her to do.

Likewise I do not care about the mythical 'rights' of women allowing them to do what they want with humans gestating in their wombs, whom are not part of their bodies, hence the womb, amniotic fluid and placental cord which separates the two genetically discrete organisms.
Nor do I care about opinions such as yours...what I care about is what is and what isn't proscribed by LAW.

I put this to you.

If I deliberately stabbed a pregnant woman's body, in the abdomen, killing her unborn son would I not be deserving of a criminal charge of unlawful slaying/infanticide/murder?
As well as a charge of attempted murder against the woman?

Or are criminals permitted to kill fetuses as well in your world of 'rights'?

I find it amusing that an atheist subscribes to a line of reasoning based upon an article of faith....

My my.
My world of rights ?
mythical rights of women ?

The question has always been and will always be what is the line from whereon the fetus is considered a person.
Some say it's after birth, some say it's at conception, some say it depends on what functions/traits the fetus already has developped.
And I say, this should only concern the pregnant woman.
Not you, not me, not the most extreme liberal or fundamentalist christian.
Now I agree that law is important, meaning in NO way am I advocating infanticide.
If the law states that from month X, abortion is illegal, thn it is illegal and to violate that law would ofc be a major crime and should be punished as such.
However, people like you have no business whatsoever to try and dictate what a women should do with her own body.
Because it IS her body, she sustains the fetus, she delivers it. It should be her decision to make, within legal confinements.
Demanding that a rape victim have the baby is sick.
But ofc it would be too much to ask to consider the physical and mental wellbeing of the mother right ?
It only matters to you what YOU find moral, even on matters that don't concern you in the slightest, and somehow your own position is even more valid thn the mother's.
So your stabbing example. What does a mother's choice have to do with being stabbed ?
Ofc you would be deserving of a criminal charge of atempted murder, with a punishment made more severe because you took the life of her unborn (wouldn't exactly call it infanticide though, fetus =/=child)

Seriously, What makes you think I consider a mother's choice about what's growing inside her to be held as equally valid as a criminal deciding to stab her ?
Listen to yourself here
'Or are criminals permitted to kill fetuses as well in your world of rights'
Wow you sound like the most fundamental of theists here.
Have i ever said this ? Hinted at it ? Is this a logical conclusion to make when you only read I care about the mother's choice ?
This is like an atheist saying 'morals don't come from God' and a theist going bananas with 'so in your worldview you can kill everybody you like?'

An article of faith please. What do I take on faith?
I am well aware of any biological 'independence' a fetus has in regard to the mother. It still grows inside her body. HER body, a domain where you should not place any of your concern.
If you want to demand her to keep the baby, fine, pay for the child's shelter, food, and education, and help the woman raise it.
Thn maybe your opinion would have some merit.

(And we actually are on the same side here.
You say you don't care about opinion, only law
I say I don't care about opinion, only the mother's within confinement of the law
there is not 1 abortion that is legal in my view that wouldn't be in yours. Ofc things will probably change when you ask 'what should the law be')