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?

[connermt]

All human beings have the right to live.

Why?
What causes you to believe this?

[Haven]

All human beings have the right to live.

Why?
What causes you to believe this?

I just believe it; it feels right to me.

[His Name Is John]

I just believe it; it feels right to me.

Come on Haven, that's not good enough. I agree with your conclusion, and I want you to keep that conclusion, but please change your reasoning and argument to reach said conclusion.

[Quath]

I think a lot of morality for atheists can be traced back to some variation of the golden rule. My personal favorite is "Treat other people as if you were them." I think you can derive this low of reciprocity from the "might makes right" model along with some game theory.

So I can see where this can lead to a value like saying that all humans have the right to life.

In this case of killing an infant, a lot rides on the idea of "what is human?" For example, put a fertilized egg and a newborn baby next to each other and kill both of them. I will have a reaction to the newborn that is extremely different from the egg because I see the baby as more human. Or more like the sentient life I value. (If you put the egg against a kitten, I would feel more loss over the death of the kitten as well.)

As the egg develops and turns more into a human, I care more and more for it. But to me this whole thing is about drawing lines in the sand and saying when should the rules change. I think most people are willing to call infants as being human enough for most rights.

[Haven]

Come on Haven, that's not good enough. I agree with your conclusion, and I want you to keep that conclusion, but please change your reasoning and argument to reach said conclusion.

I'm a non-cognitivist -- an expressivist, to be more specific -- as to morality and ethics. As such, I believe that moral imperatives are not propositional or truth-apt, but instead they are subjective statements of an individual's or society's feelings toward a given act.

More pragmatically, I believe in respecting and protecting the lives of all sentient (or potentially sentient) beings, so babies (born and unborn) should be protected under that rationale as they possess the potential for sentience. However, not all human beings fall into that category; for example, Alzheimer's patients, anencephalic people, and individuals in persistent vegetative states are neither sentient nor potentially sentient. I believe such people should be protected simply because I feel it is wrong to take human life. However, if such indivduals had living wills and expressed a wish to be euthanized upon getting Alzheimer's / PVS / etc. then I believe they should have the right to die.

[AdHoc]

I think a lot of morality for atheists can be traced back to some variation of the golden rule. My personal favorite is "Treat other people as if you were them." I think you can derive this low of reciprocity from the "might makes right" model along with some game theory.

So I can see where this can lead to a value like saying that all humans have the right to life.

In this case of killing an infant, a lot rides on the idea of "what is human?" For example, put a fertilized egg and a newborn baby next to each other and kill both of them. I will have a reaction to the newborn that is extremely different from the egg because I see the baby as more human. Or more like the sentient life I value. (If you put the egg against a kitten, I would feel more loss over the death of the kitten as well.)

As the egg develops and turns more into a human, I care more and more for it. But to me this whole thing is about drawing lines in the sand and saying when should the rules change. I think most people are willing to call infants as being human enough for most rights.

You know eggs on their own don't develop into anything right?

I'm sure you do but I'm uncomfortable with the statement as is.

[Quath]

You know eggs on their own don't develop into anything right?

I'm sure you do but I'm uncomfortable with the statement as is.

Yes. I meant for the egg to be placed next to the baby in a figurative sense. Sorry that did not come across clearer.

[AdHoc]

You know eggs on their own don't develop into anything right?

I'm sure you do but I'm uncomfortable with the statement as is.

Yes. I meant for the egg to be placed next to the baby in a figurative sense. Sorry that did not come across clearer.

Now I'm even less clear of what you mean

[Quath]

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.

[bluethread]

You know eggs on their own don't develop into anything right?

I'm sure you do but I'm uncomfortable with the statement as is.

To be more accurate eggs as well as sperm are already developed and live a full and independant life in a frendly environment. These two life forms are capable of convergence in which they become a third life form. A human egg or sperm cell is no more human than a human blood cell. In fact, the blood cell is more human since it contains a full set of chromosomes. However, a blood cell is not an independant life form, but a cellullar tissue mass.

The third life created from the convergence is also independant. Though it does attach itself to a porious membrane and create a biological interface, it is more of an independant life form than a cellular tissue mass, because it has different DNA. It is dependant in the same way that a parasite or symbiot is. However, a parasite or symbiot is a different species from it's host. Therefore, apart from size, cell specialization and degree of evironmental dependence, the zygote is the same life form as the fully developed adult. Differentiating on any of these three criteria is just a matter of degree and therefore arbitrary and applicable to similar adult human beings.