Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: So-Called Medical Ethicists Argue FOR Infanticide

Posted 2 years ago on March 19, 2012, 10:40 a.m. EST by GildasSapiens (266)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Abstract:

"Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is NOT disabled."

PROTEST TO Co-Author Dr Francesca Minerva: francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

7 Comments

7 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by GildasSapiens (266) 2 years ago

"After-birth abortion"!

Yet another psychopathic euphemism (like "collateral damage", "extraordinary rendition", "enhanced interrogation", etc.)!

The 1% psychopaths are trying to grab control of the language as well!

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17898) 2 years ago

Thanx 'GS' for your excellent though disturbing post and comment. The source of this story originates in The British Medical Journal's "Journal of Medical Ethics" ( http://jme.bmj.com/ ) although exactly WTF kind of 'Ethics' are being displayed is open to debate - to say the least !

The Psychopathy and Homicidal Inhumanity of The 0.01% becomes quite palpable via such horrific insights into Their 'Future and Present Thinking' !!

respice ; adspice ; prospice !!!

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

There can be no such thing as "after birth" abortion (you can't abort something that has already happened). Even before abortion laws were promulgated, the common law rule was always a "first breath" rule (once a newborn took their first breath of life, they were always considered an independent living human being).

Even ignoring the common law history, I find nothing "ethical" about this so called ethical statement. Doctors are not the final arbiters of our laws, legislators, lawyers, judges, and ultimately, the people decide our laws. Although, in this case, I don't think anyone has a right to decide that what amounts to murder, is okay. Human rights should not be a matter subjected to popular vote, much less subjected to the whims of medical opinion.

In our own jurisprudence, fetal viability is the line demarcating when the state has a compelling interest in protecting the life of a fetus, and to go beyond "first breath" has never been something we've considered. Killing an infant after his or her birth is murder, it's that simple, and doctors do not have the right to unilaterally override this rule, and impose their personal ethical views on humanity.

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Babies have a will to live. Haven't these "doctors" ever been to a NICU? Gross.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I try to dispose of a few million "potential persons" everyday.

[-] 1 points by TechnicolorYawn (4) from White, NJ 2 years ago

I fail to see the problem here. This is what our culture pushes as right. Pro abortion people argue privacy. Anti abortion people argue infanticide. This is what "progressives" have brought to this nation.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Oh for crying out loud...it's a thesis...it argues the supposed ethics that could be used to justify or deny certain actions.

It's a non-issue.

[Removed]