posted March 01, 2012 10:03 PM            

KILLING newborn babies should be allowed if the mother wishes, Australian philosophers have argued in a prestigious journal.
Their argument, that it is morally the same as abortion, has forced the British Medical Journal to defend its publication of their views.
In an article that has sparked outrage around the world and elicited death threats, Monash University's Alberto Giubilini and the University of Melbourne's Francesca Minerva say that a foetus and a newborn both lack a sense of life and aspiration.
They argue this justifies "after-birth abortion" on the proviso it is painless as the baby is not missing out on a life it cannot contemplate.
The doctors of philosophy argue in the BMJ publication Journal of Medical Ethics that one-third of infants with Down syndrome are not diagnosed in the womb, which means mothers of children with severe disabilities should have the chance to end a child's life after, as well as before, birth.
However, the pair also want the principle of killing newborns extended to healthy babies, because a mother who is unwilling to care for it outweighs an infant's right to life.
In the article, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, the authors argue: "A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human."
They also write that the practice should be called "after-birth abortion" and not "infanticide" to "emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a foetus (on which 'abortions' in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child".
"We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ 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."
Although the authors claim that the "moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a 'person' in a morally relevant sense", they concede it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a "person".
The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, 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."
He defended the article, saying the arguments in the paper were not new. "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."
He said that "more than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society".

Read more: http://www.ne ws.com.au/national/abortion-outrage-mums-should-be-allowed-to-terminate-newborns-say-australian-academics/story-e6frfkvr-1226286841396#ixzz1nvOphzQY

posted March 02, 2012 07:58 AM            

She's certainly not someone I've ever come across before and there doesn't seem to be much info about her either so it could be that she was looking to get some attention to lift her out of obscurity.

A couple of other philosophers have also said similar things. Including Nietszche, though I think his argument was more about keeping people alive when their quality of life was poor.

posted March 02, 2012 09:12 AM            

We're not monsters.

I'm not going to debate this issue, though I will point out that what people believe vs. what's actually realistic and able to become law are two different things. For this to realistically happen, there would have to be enough support to it within the mainstream and the government. Government officials want to be re-elected, so anything too extreme is unlikely. So, even if a handful of people think this, it's not likely to actually become legal, at least not any time soon.

And, too, are we sure that the person is serious, or are they arguing something extreme just to make a point? Is this really something that the person sincerely means and believes in, or is this person (a) just wanting to draw attention to himself/herself and (b) is anti-choice and is making this argument just to be absurd and extreme?

Even if the person sincerely believes these things, not likely to actually become law.

posted March 02, 2012 05:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by dysfunctionalmystic:
I did manage to read the report in full.

---

posted March 03, 2012 03:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BearsArcher:
This belongs in GU or another forum because it will get even more heated unless it is just dropped.

---

posted March 03, 2012 05:48 AM            

Late term abortions are uncommon with the vast majority taking place before 12 weeks [this will probably have come down since the introduction of the pills] and despite what the media portray ~ doctors will not hand out late terminations unless there is a serious reason for it [usually medical].

I can't say that I know of many pro choice people that would agree with this.

posted March 03, 2012 05:08 PM            

So I was surprised by this pair of philosophers that instead focused almost exclusively on comparing a fetus to an infant as pro-life advocates do, even if they remain pro-choice. Given that there are people who infiltrate groups they hate with the intention of making them look bad I couldn't help but wonder if something like that was going on here (and thus suspicious). But then I've met philosophy majors before and I realize just how weird mental masturbation can be as well, so given other factors (as best as I could understand them) I figured they were for real rather than as plants for some other group, especially as abortion isn't a hot button issue in Australia like it is in the US.

posted March 04, 2012 06:22 AM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted March 04, 2012 08:54 AM            

The pro-choice argument is not about what God says or demands but what rights women have and should have. No one should tell a woman or anyone else for that matter what to do with their bodies and if a woman wishes to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason she might have, then the laws of the land should ensure that her well-being is given first priority and she is given all medical, monetary and psychological help to achieve this.

The argument in this journal is inherently fallacious as it falls prey to the same flawed judgement as that used by "pro-lifers". A fetus IS NOT an infant and any correlation between the two is scientifically and morally inaccurate. For those propounding the ubiquitous slogan of the Sanctity of Life, an unborn fetus has more rights than a woman's right to her own body.

Both arguments are invalid thus.

A Fetus is not an Infant. Any attempt to correlate the two is grossly inaccurate. Hence the above argument is not "pro-choice" whatever the authors may think.

posted March 04, 2012 12:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frozen Queen:
Do not bring "God" into this. By saying life and death are the domain of some hypothetical deity are we to understand that a human(woman)'s rights are of less importance than the supposed domain of a deity?

The pro-choice argument is not about what God says or demands but what rights women have and should have. No one should tell a woman or anyone else for that matter what to do with their bodies and if a woman wishes to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason she might have, then the laws of the land should ensure that her well-being is given first priority and she is given all medical, monetary and psychological help to achieve this.

The argument in this journal is inherently fallacious as it falls prey to the same flawed judgement as that used by "pro-lifers". A fetus IS NOT an infant and any correlation between the two is scientifically and morally inaccurate. For those propounding the ubiquitous slogan of the Sanctity of Life, an unborn fetus has more rights than a woman's right to her own body.

Both arguments are invalid thus.

A Fetus is not an Infant. Any attempt to correlate the two is grossly inaccurate. Hence the above argument is not "pro-choice" whatever the authors may think.

---

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted March 04, 2012 01:36 PM            

******************

I think the people who said these things did it just to show what type of reactions the public would throw up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomiting

"Vomiting (known medically as emesis and informally as throwing up and by a number of other terms) is the forceful expulsion of the contents of one's stomach through the mouth and sometimes the nose."

Take a look at the reactions. Murder is in there. This is no better.

*It was just to show you like a mirror*

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literal-minded

lit·er·al-mind·ed

Unimaginative; prosaic; matter-of-fact.

Everywhere The Sky Is Burning, Including Right Over Your Own Head

http://www.anyman.com/gist.htm

"Life is a maze in which we take the wrong turning before we have learned to walk."
- Cyril Connolly

"God is a place you will wait for the rest of your life."
- Jeff Magnum, Neutral Milk Hotel, "Two-Headed Boy Part 2," In The Aeroplane Over The Sea

"You are free and that is why you are lost.
In man's struggle against the world, bet on the world."
-Franz Kafka

"It is a luxury to be understood."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

posted March 04, 2012 06:48 PM            

Not only that, but abortion was a capital crime in Nazi Germany yet we see just how much they valued human life. That is to say, how society views a fetus is completely different from how society perceives a person (including infants).

ETA: And as for bringing religion into it that also shows a difference. Most religious people against abortions seem to care for the sanctity of life from zygote to birth, but then oppose welfare for single mothers, health & nutritional programs for children who need them (which those who would be aborted but are not typically do), and even contraception despite that all these things not only lead to less abortion in society but help children. That means they don't care about the children (and I think it's a safe bet all they care about is the woman's body rather than the baby, and making her pay for having sex, which is further promoted by these people opposing HPV vaccines, with some saying outright they feared females might have sex without the fear of cancer, meaning they really want females--including their own daughters--who have sex to be punished for it and live in fear). And, of course, many opposed to abortion are big supporters of war and capital punishment, again showing that the value they place on a fetus isn't the same value they place on human life.

posted March 05, 2012 04:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
I don't see the slippery slope here because no society (save maybe the Netherlands in the most extreme cases, but they've always been more inclined than others to say out of sexual issues, for better and for worse) has "slipped" that way, and there's no real sign that Australia is about to.

Not only that, but abortion was a capital crime in Nazi Germany yet we see just how much they valued human life. That is to say, how society views a fetus is completely different from how society perceives a person (including infants).

ETA: And as for bringing religion into it that also shows a difference. Most religious people against abortions seem to care for the sanctity of life from zygote to birth, but then oppose welfare for single mothers, health & nutritional programs for children who need them (which those who would be aborted but are not typically do), and even contraception despite that all these things not only lead to less abortion in society but help children. That means they don't care about the children (and I think it's a safe bet all they care about is the woman's body rather than the baby, and making her pay for having sex, which is further promoted by these people opposing HPV vaccines, with some saying outright they feared females might have sex without the fear of cancer, meaning they really want females--including their own daughters--who have sex to be punished for it and live in fear). And, of course, many opposed to abortion are big supporters of war and capital punishment, again showing that the value they place on a fetus isn't the same value they place on human life.

And the Bible itself says to stone disobedient children. Even in the New Testament St. Paul (Hebrews 11:32) praised an OT guy (and list him as an example for all Christians to follow) who's only accomplishment of note was to destroy a nation with great slaughter and then sacrifice his virgin daughter to the Lord (Judges 11: 29-40). (Also, here's how some of the others St. Paul praised in Hebrews 11:32 valued life.)

---