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?

[Chase200mph]

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 find it completely abhorrent and uncivilized.

Answer: No religion is civilized in the sense of being far, righteous and or about rights. Religions all make the claim they support being far, righteous and or about rights…but this is only the sales pitch and is always far from the truth.

In the Torah, if someone killed an infant in the womb, God said the mother must be recompensed.

Evil bible lists that the Torah also says…

Evils, Atrocities and Injustices of the Torah

The following is a very SHORT list of sadistic acts that are commanded, allowed, or threatened by God and his “righteous� men. All of these verses can be found in the Torah. (which are the first five books of the Bible.) I have put them in chronological order so that you may verify them as you read along. (Keep in mind that the scriptures literally have an atrocity on every other page. So this list will keep evolving as I work through the Pentateuch yet again. To compile a full list may take months, so feel free to check back in later.) God entraps humans by placing the tree of knowledge in the garden and telling Adam and Eve not to eat of it. This is rather similar to placing a toy in front of a child and telling them they are not allowed to play with it. God created us with instinct, rebellion, and curiosity. Soon he punishes us for only doing what is part of our nature. Genesis 2:16.47

God now commands that all women must have health hazardous labors for Eve ate the fruit. In no way shape or form is it just that I must pay for the sins of my ancestors. Genesis 3:16

God caused sibling rivalry by favoring Abel over Cain, with absolutely no attempt at justification. This act of favoritism led to Abel’s death. Genesis 4:3-5

Genesis 7:23 He killed, intentionally, every man, woman, and child on the planet save eight of them.

God commands Hagar go back into servanthood and bear children for her master though she does not want to. Genesis 16:7-9

Genesis 19:23-25 God burns down a whole city (women and children included) simply because they were supposedly homosexual.

Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and that the Lord slew him. How was Er wicked? The Bible doesn’t give us this bit of information, only that Er was wicked in the sight of the Lord. Genesis 38:7

Genesis 38:10 God murders Onan for refusing to commit incest with his sister in law.

Exodus 12:29 God repeatedly tells Moses exactly what calamity he will next visit upon the Egyptians if the Pharaoh does not allow the Israelites to be set free from slavery. Then he tells Moses (also repeatedly) that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart, so that he will refuse to allow the Israelites to go, thus bringing a calamity upon his own people, as well as showing him the awesome power of the Israelites’ Lord. This occurs over and over, bringing calamity upon calamity upon the Egyptian people. What is troubling about this verse is that when god “hardens the pharaoh’s heart� he is interfering with the Pharaoh’s free will and ultimately bringing punishment on the Egyptians for something they are not responsible for. As a final punishment god decides to kill all the first born of Egypt. The lord reduced himself to murdering innocent kids when he could have simply freed the Israelites himself with his “omnipotent� power.

God punishes children for the sins of their fathers, unto the third and fourth generations. Punishing a child for the sins of their ancestors is not very just. Exodus 20:5&34:7

God endorses slavery. He even set up laws as to how slavery was to be carried out, and goes as far as Okaying beating them. Exodus 21:2-6

God sanctioned the selling of ones daughter. How can any being tell another to literally sell their child into slavery? Disgusting! Exodus 21:7

Exodus 22:18 God orders the death of witches, sorceresses and anyone who practices magic. Sadly enough, this verse was justification for the Inquisition.

Exodus 32:27 God ordered to be killed, 3,000 Israelites for no greater crime than worshipping a golden calf. I don’t know about you but death is a pretty harsh fucking punishment.

Leviticus 20:9-10 God commands death for cursing out ones parents and death for adultery. Gee, with these types of laws the population should be almost nil by now.

Once again god is a homophobe, or at the very least, a bigot. Leviticus 20:13

Handicapped people must not approach the altar. Leviticus 21:16-23

Leviticus 26:30 “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shill ye eat.�

Leviticus 27:28-29 God ordered and allowed human sacrifices.

Numbers 16:27 God buries alive Korah and his family.

Numbers 16:35 God killed 250 Levite princes who disagreed with Moses’ leadership. He was so bloodthirsty that he wanted to slay more until he was talked out of it. Later he put a plague upon 14,700 Jews who thought there was something wrong in killing 250 princes.

Numbers 21:1-3 God utterly destroyed the Canaanites at Hormah as a favor to the Jews.

Numbers 21:27-35 God abetted Moses in utterly destroying the Amorites at Heshbon - “…the men, the women, and the little ones.�

Numbers 31:17-18 God commands Moses to kill all the Medianite people including children and women. To top it off he commands that the virgins be saved for later raping by Moses’ soldiers.

Deuteronomy 3:3-7 God ordered Moses’ army to “utterly destroy� 60 cities, killing all the women and children within!

Deuteronomy 7:12 God ordered the Israelites to kill all the people of seven nations. He even adds, “show no mercy unto them�.

Deuteronomy 20:16 God orders that we kill everything that breathes in the cities that he gives us for an inheritance

A bastard can’t attend church “even to his tenth generation.� As if denying an innocent child rights to worship isn’t cruel. Deuteronomy 23:2



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.

Answer: Agreed, ban ALL religions, fight them through education and expose their evils…..

[Chase200mph]

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?

It’s all about the Benjamins……………………… Britain’s medical services suck an near collapse.

[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.

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.

It is also a choice for the taxpayer to make; is it worth spending possibly millions on maintaining a sub-par standard of living for one individual? That the U.S. seems to believe so seems ironic to me in light of many other policies, but there you go.

I draw the line in a very vague manner; I think that, in general, one should be given the right to life when they are at least capable of maintaining it independently. If ones parents are unwilling or incapable of maintaining ones life until such a point, death or giving away is the logical measure given that.

Britain’s medical services suck an near collapse.

Would you care to support this?

[catalyst]

I am pro choice when it comes to abortion.

As such, I do have the same view as to this.

I mean the article does not state that parents are offing their kids because they are "gingers"...or don't have x coloured eyes.

In cases such as this though, like with abortion, my opinion or anyone outside the immediately affected parties means zero.

Who am I to make a judgement on parents who decide to end their newborns life due to severe congenital defects?

It's more than obvious that they WANTED the child enough in the first place to see a pregnancy through, so it certainly would not be a passing fancy.

I have never been in that particular situation so I don't know what I would do, but.. I guess I would be weighing up the quality of life the little one would or could have and see that as far more viable than quantity.

It would be a difficult decision for any parent to make and one I am glad I will never have to.

Catalyst.


PS. Wondering why this particular thread was posted in C&A.

[Nox]

I draw it at conception. Simple.

So you draw it at a single-celled organism?

Where would you draw the line of death? Like most people, it generally ranges from the inability to breathe on one's own or the cessation of cognitive functions.

Why shouldn't it be there where life starts? Why is there a different definition of what "life" is based on whether it's beginning or ending?

On your argument, death truly occurs when there is only one cell of the once-living organism left.

[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.

It is also a choice for the taxpayer to make; is it worth spending possibly millions on maintaining a sub-par standard of living for one individual? That the U.S. seems to believe so seems ironic to me in light of many other policies, but there you go.

I draw the line in a very vague manner; I think that, in general, one should be given the right to life when they are at least capable of maintaining it independently. If ones parents are unwilling or incapable of maintaining ones life until such a point, death or giving away is the logical measure given that.

Britain’s medical services suck an near collapse.

Would you care to support this?

wordpress.com….mind you I am still pro national health care…. : )

[NoisForm]

Mods; I posted this topic in 'Right and Wrong' Sat. morning. Perhaps a merge? thx

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=19283

[Bust Nak]

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

Well, I haven't see any politician make that case.

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

They have whatever right we decide to give them. What makes a right moral or immoral?

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?

Too icky to be considered.

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

I think so, there is not much physical difference between a fetus just before birth and a new born.

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)?

Personally I found the idea to be unpalatable.

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?

Well they are definitely opposed to the value of letting people voice their opinion heard without threatening with violent.

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?

Sure they do have a point, but I don't think that matters, some issues are more to do with emotions than reason.

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

There are differences between early and late abortion, there are no difference between late abortion and outside of 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?

It depends on the mental development, and with that, the capable of experiencing pain and pleasure.

[Chase200mph]

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

Well, I haven't see any politician make that case.

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

They have whatever right we decide to give them. What makes a right moral or immoral?

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?

Too icky to be considered.

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

I think so, there is not much physical difference between a fetus just before birth and a new born.

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)?

Personally I found the idea to be unpalatable.

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?

Well they are definitely opposed to the value of letting people voice their opinion heard without threatening with violent.

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?

Sure they do have a point, but I don't think that matters, some issues are more to do with emotions than reason.

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

There are differences between early and late abortion, there are no difference between late abortion and outside of 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?

It depends on the mental development, and with that, the capable of experiencing pain and pleasure.

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

Well, I haven't see any politician make that case.


: )

[Goat]

It’s all about the Benjamins……………………… Britain’s medical services suck an near collapse.

Could you please support this . I have heard the opposite opinion from people who are actually In Britain.