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?

[Strider324]

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?

If infanticide is good enough for the hebrew deity, why wouldn't it be good enough for you?

[dianaiad]

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?

If infanticide is good enough for the hebrew deity, why wouldn't it be good enough for you?

So...are you for or against, yourself?

[Haven]

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.

[LiamOS]

I would personally make a distinction between abortion and early infanticide, but I would agree with the right to kill ones child in the immediate time after birth, or at least the ability to forfeit it to the care of the state without repercussions.

[dianaiad]

I would personally make a distinction between abortion and early infanticide, but I would agree with the right to kill ones child in the immediate time after birth, or at least the ability to forfeit it to the care of the state without repercussions.

I don't know about everywhere, but in the USA mothers have exactly that right.

But I have to say that I do agree with the article; if it is acceptable to end a life just before birth...then I see no difference between that and ending a life after birth--but where do you draw the line THEN?

I draw it at conception. Simple.

[Goat]

I would personally make a distinction between abortion and early infanticide, but I would agree with the right to kill ones child in the immediate time after birth, or at least the ability to forfeit it to the care of the state without repercussions.

I would also make a distinction between abortion and early infanticide. However, I don't know if I would say 'kill' , but perhaps say no to 'heroic measures' to save a child that has little or no chance of survival

[Chase200mph]

I would personally make a distinction between abortion and early infanticide, but I would agree with the right to kill ones child in the immediate time after birth, or at least the ability to forfeit it to the care of the state without repercussions.

I don't know about everywhere, but in the USA mothers have exactly that right.

But I have to say that I do agree with the article; if it is acceptable to end a life just before birth...then I see no difference between that and ending a life after birth--but where do you draw the line THEN?

I draw it at conception. Simple.

And where does the article make that distinction or claim? Perhaps you call post it for the rest of us?

[Chase200mph]

I would personally make a distinction between abortion and early infanticide, but I would agree with the right to kill ones child in the immediate time after birth, or at least the ability to forfeit it to the care of the state without repercussions.

How does one make an informed decision of such things… shouldn’t the parent be sober, coherent, and informed…….none of these things usually exist after giving birth let alone having just been burdened the additional shock of a birth defect.
Euthanasia is not always voluntary; the Britts’ have many strange ideas that don’t directly translate here….

[revelationtestament]

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.