Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Evidently Jeffrey Dahmer works as an ethicist for Oxford University.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

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.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded 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”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.

Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled 'What is the problem with euthanasia?'

He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.

Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.

What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.

Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary's University College, said: "If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say 'it's doesn't matter, she can get another one,' is that what we want to happen?

"What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new."

Referring to the term "after-birth abortion", Dr Stammers added: "This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide."

**biccat**

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

In other news, water is wet.

**dogma**

When personhood is established is a point of contention.

Though it seems more convenient to regulate via trimester, or actual birth.

That said, the dependent status of the fetus is distinct from that of the newborn. Children can be given up to adoption, fetuses cannot. The idea that the two are equivalent is idiocy.

**Pacific**

Ask any doctor who performs an abortion, or person who has had one, if that feeling would be akin to killing a newborn baby.

I always think anyone who makes blanket assertions of 'abortions are fine' or 'abortions should be illegal', without understanding that there are extremely convoluted areas of grey in-between, which can only be understood on an individual basis, needs to have a serious reality check.

Absolute, utter nonsense, the Telegraph continues to go the way of the Mail in writing confrontational articles that only serve to encourage a polarisation of opinion for topics such as these.

**biccat**

Here's the link to the JME.

I recall a well-respected (in his field, not so much publicly afterwards) ethicist made this argument a few years ago...

**Manchu**

Does this strike anyone else as an elaborate case of devil's advocacy?

**dogma**

biccat wrote:Here's the link to the JME.

I recall a well-respected (in his field, not so much publicly afterwards) ethicist made this argument a few years ago...

Its an interesting argument, and one that extends to the handicapped, but it won't fly with most; as Western society tends towards the sanctity of life.

Still, it doesn't escape the argument from implicit dependency.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Does this strike anyone else as an elaborate case of devil's advocacy?

It strikes me as numerous things, that among them.

**Kilkrazy**

Philip K Dick wrote a fun short story in which abortion was allowed up the age at which the ability to understand algebra appeared.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:Does this strike anyone else as an elaborate case of devil's advocacy?

Nope. They writers are also supportive of euthanasia. It fits their agenda of "if you're not useful or perfect its the needle for you!"

**Manchu**

... some anti-abortionists have welcomed its publication, saying it casts a bright light on what abortion actually is.

Anthony Ozimic, from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said the article, which he described as a "chilling promotion of infanticide", showed how abortion was "creating a culture of death".

While he was appalled at the suggestion that newborns should be killed for their parents' convenience, he nevertheless said it showed the logical framework behind infanticide and abortion was the same.He said: "The paper proves what pro-lifers have long been arguing: that the common arguments for abortion also justify infanticide.

"There is no difference in moral status between a child one day before birth and a child one day after birth.

"Birth is merely a change of location, not a change from non-personhood to personhood."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9117804/Abortion-article-author-receives-death-threats.html

It just seems so perfect for pro-lifers.

**Redbeard**

I don't understand the issue. Of course it's similar and should be allowed.

Once upon a time, the parents (usually fathers) of offspring were allowed to decide whether their newborn was 'viable', and if not, it was left out for exposure and nature to take its course. Food was scarce and investing in a deformed or deficient child was a luxury that couldn't be afforded.

Of course, that was back when humans needed to be hardy, and there weren't seven billion of us littered across the planet. Nowadays, we'd rather ban peanut butter in an entire school than let one kid with a genetic defect die.

Seven billion humans is non-sustainable. We are using the planet's resources faster than they can be replenished. In order to pack another billion of us in, we condemn untold numbers of other species to extinction. Is that ethical? Killing off non-useful humans is hardly an unethical decision.

**Manchu**

Okay, but I get to decide who's non-useful.

**Frazzled**

Redbeard wrote:I don't understand the issue. Of course it's similar and should be allowed.

Once upon a time, the parents (usually fathers) of offspring were allowed to decide whether their newborn was 'viable', and if not, it was left out for exposure and nature to take its course. Food was scarce and investing in a deformed or deficient child was a luxury that couldn't be afforded.

That was also when the Romans had slaves and fathers could wipe out their entire family legally under the law. Since then we've discovered the earth is neither flat nor the center of the solar system.

If you have no inherent value then you have no right to exist? Really? Then quick, everyone better get wiener dogs because hey otherwise you have no inherent value. You! Off my planet!

**Grakmar**

It all comes down to the question: When does a collection of organic molecules stop being a collection of organic molecules and start being a human?

Some people draw the line at conception (when sperm meets egg). Some people draw the line at pregnancy (when fertilized egg secures to the uterine wall). Some people draw the line at when a fetus becomes viable outside the womb. Some people draw the line at birth. These guys draw the line sometime after birth (it's not clear when, perhaps when the child achieves sentience?).

No one is entirely wrong. Every side has it's arguments for and against their definition. Society just needs to sit down and figure this out in a calm and civil manner. (And, when that happens, I'll cheer from the back of my pig flying over the frozen wasteland of hell.)

**Manchu**

The question here is not what is human but who is a person.

**biccat**

Manchu wrote:The question here is not what is human but who is a person.

Very true. As soon as egg meets sperm you have a unique and distinct "human organism."

Grakmar wrote:It all comes down to the question: When does a collection of organic molecules stop being a collection of organic molecules and start being a human?

Not for most pro-choice advocates it doesn't. The dividing line on abortion isn't when the fetus is human, it is when does the interest of the potential child overcome the interest of the mother in not having a child.

Redbeard wrote:Seven billion humans is non-sustainable. We are using the planet's resources faster than they can be replenished. In order to pack another billion of us in, we condemn untold numbers of other species to extinction. Is that ethical? Killing off non-useful humans is hardly an unethical decision.

One human isn't sustainable, the Earth is slowly decaying. I don't think there's anything wrong with seven billion people, it's clear that the planet can conceivably support a lot more humans.

Disclaimer: I value human life over non-human life.

**filbert**

Kilkrazy wrote:Philip K Dick wrote a fun short story in which abortion was allowed up the age at which the ability to understand algebra appeared.

That's me boned then....

**Joey**

Flamebait? Or do you actually take this guy seriously?

**Grakmar**

Agreed with above, I should have said "person" when I wrote "human".

biccat wrote:
Grakmar wrote:It all comes down to the question: When does a collection of organic molecules stop being a collection of organic molecules and start being a human?

Not for most pro-choice advocates it doesn't. The dividing line on abortion isn't when the fetus is human, it is when does the interest of the potential child overcome the interest of the mother in not having a child.

I think that you're wrong in the beginning of this statement. The underlying assumption of a pro-choice advocate is that a "potential child" isn't actually a child, and choosing not to let it become a child (by terminating the pregnancy) is no different from using birth control or even abstinence.

I think that the pro-life side is in fundamental agreement with this statement. They just view a fertilized egg as already being a "child", so terminating the pregnancy is killing the "child".

**biccat**

Grakmar wrote:I think that you're wrong in the beginning of this statement. The underlying assumption of a pro-choice advocate is that a "potential child" isn't actually a child, and choosing not to let it become a child (by terminating the pregnancy) is no different from using birth control or even abstinence.

Then there's no principled difference between infanticide and abortion, it's simply a matter of line drawing.

**Kilkrazy**

Cannot lines be drawn according to principles?

**Grakmar**

biccat wrote:
Grakmar wrote:I think that you're wrong in the beginning of this statement. The underlying assumption of a pro-choice advocate is that a "potential child" isn't actually a child, and choosing not to let it become a child (by terminating the pregnancy) is no different from using birth control or even abstinence.

Then there's no principled difference between infanticide and abortion, it's simply a matter of line drawing.

That's my exact point.

Both sides are in agreement: Intentionally preventing a hypothetical person from existing is acceptable. Killing a real person is unacceptable. The issue is, where do we draw the line between the two?

**Kilkrazy**

Many people feel it is acceptable to kill a "real person" in time of war, or in self defence, or via capital punishment.

**biccat**

Kilkrazy wrote:Many people feel it is acceptable to kill a "real person" in time of war, or in self defence, or via capital punishment.

In your opinion, would you classify an unborn child as an enemy (as in war), assailant (as in self defense) or criminal (as in capital punishment)?

Grakmar wrote:Both sides are in agreement: Intentionally preventing a hypothetical person from existing is acceptable. Killing a real person is unacceptable. The issue is, where do we draw the line between the two?

I disagree that both sides are in agreement. Both sides like to talk past eachother on the issue - pro-choice activists frame the issue as one of women's health while pro-life advocates frame the issue as depriving a child of life.

You could also argue that both sides are in agreement: a woman has the right to decide whether she wants to become a woman or not. The issue is, where do we draw the line on responsibility? (pre-sexual intercourse or post-sexual intercourse).

**Redbeard**

biccat wrote:
One human isn't sustainable, the Earth is slowly decaying.

One human is plenty sustainable, even if the earth is very slowly decaying. Humans are, essentially, predator species. Predators and prey exist in a symbiotic arrangement where predators prevent overpopulation of prey, and prey reproduce fast enough to enable the predators to take a few without harming the system. Eventually predator and prey populations fall into a stable state, where there may be slight fluctuations in either's number, but these fluctuations cause a natural response. (Similar relationships exist between herbivores and plant life).

However, overpopulation of predators will see their numbers first grow, and then fall rapidly as the prey is destroyed faster than it is replenished. Predators then must either find new places to hunt or new species to prey upon, or themselves die out.

Humans keep pushing into new places. One could argue that this is natural, and there are plenty of new places to go, but this is short-sighted. As we further expand, we do so into land that was either previously deemed uninhabitable, and must expend even more resources to enable us to live there (migrations into desert areas) or we must force out more of the non-human occupants of that land.

Disclaimer: I value human life over non-human life.

So this obviously doesn't bother you. I, however, view this as more of a diminishing returns problem. Take tigers, for example. At the beginning of the 20th century, there were estimated to be over 100,000 tigers in the wild. Today, there are less than 5000. From 1997 to 2007, the habitat available to wild tigers decreased by 41%, due to human encroachment on lands historically occupied by tigers. Tiger populations decreased by a similar amount.

To me, the life of one wild tiger is worth far more than the life of one human. From a biodiversity standpoint, one tiger may represent as much as .02% of the entire species, whereas one human is less than .00001% of our species. Yet forecasted human population estimates will require us to push further into these territories. And tigers are only one of many many examples.

One more human adds relatively little to the overall human condition. We're well past the point of diminishing returns. One more tiger, however, is one more chance for that species to hang on.

I don't think there's anything wrong with seven billion people, it's clear that the planet can conceivably support a lot more humans.

I disagree. Even if you are willing to accept the eventual destruction of all non-human species in order to accommodate more human living spaces, there are other resources to consider. The current number of people are causing alarming depletion of our natural water tables. Irrigation and industrial uses of water are drawing down water reserves that have existed for centuries. Wells are drying up, and increases in water prices are one of the first signs that this is a serious issue. Consider the following: http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html Groundwater levels have decreased 900 feet around Chicago. Over 100 feet in the high plains and pacific northwest. 200 feet around Baton Rouge, 400 feet around Houston. These are reserves, and they're being used up. Saying that you think we're able to support more people now, is like saying that because you have $100 in the bank, and you're losing $10/month, that you can easily afford to spend more. Well, except that there are no credit cards for water and no deficit spending to take over when you run out.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Kilkrazy wrote:Philip K Dick wrote a fun short story in which abortion was allowed up the age at which the ability to understand algebra appeared.

That might raise some grades!

This looks like RLTrolling to me. I say we make it to where we can have teenagers euthanized. Talk about not useful to society! lol

"Hmm... I can see more than 2" of your underpants, young man. Please step into this um...shower area please. "

**biccat**

Redbeard wrote:Humans are, essentially, predator species. Predators and prey exist in a symbiotic arrangement where predators prevent overpopulation of prey, and prey reproduce fast enough to enable the predators to take a few without harming the system. Eventually predator and prey populations fall into a stable state, where there may be slight fluctuations in either's number, but these fluctuations cause a natural response. (Similar relationships exist between herbivores and plant life).

I promise that cows, corn, and wheat aren't in any danger of being lost. In fact, we produce far in excess of those products we need to survive; so right now we have an overpopulation of prey (and plant life).

Redbeard wrote:To me, the life of one wild tiger is worth far more than the life of one human.

I'll make you a deal. Take out a life insurance policy on yourself. Name me as the recipient. I promise that if you die within 60 days, I will use the proceeds from that insurance policy to produce at least one more wild tiger. Maybe set up a nature reserve or something. You can likely find a lot of other people who agree with your position (valuing the life of a tiger over human life), I will extend this offer to anyone you can get to buy into the plan.

Say $1 million per person? It shouldn't be too hard to get that kind of insurance policy.

Redbeard wrote:
I don't think there's anything wrong with seven billion people, it's clear that the planet can conceivably support a lot more humans.
I disagree.

Do you disagree that we can support a lot more, or that there's nothing wrong with 7 billion people? If it's the former we can have a discussion, and I think you'll quite quickly be proven wrong; If it's the latter, there's not much to discuss.

**hotsauceman1**

biccat wrote:
Grakmar wrote:I think that you're wrong in the beginning of this statement. The underlying assumption of a pro-choice advocate is that a "potential child" isn't actually a child, and choosing not to let it become a child (by terminating the pregnancy) is no different from using birth control or even abstinence.

Then there's no principled difference between infanticide and abortion, it's simply a matter of line drawing.

Ok, You go tell that rape victim she has to keep the chiild of here rapist.
Or A teenage mother that she is forced to keep a child she can support.

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

biccat wrote:
Do you disagree that we can support a lot more, or that there's nothing wrong with 7 billion people? If it's the former we can have a discussion, and I think you'll quite quickly be proven wrong; If it's the latter, there's not much to discuss.

Oh, there's no doubt that the planet's ecosystem can hypothetically support much more than 7 billion people. Technically, there's enough food production to support the amount of people we have quite happily.
However, the problem comes not in the amount of food but the distribution of it. Richer countries have far more access to food simply because they can pay for it, whereas the poorer countries cannot.
As a result, we have starvations in places like Africa whilst obesity is becoming an epidemic in the West.

Don't get me wrong, I simplified the hell out of that, but to illustrate the point that until we fix the problem of supply, then in practice supporting such a huge population is wishful thinking at best.

**Kilkrazy**

biccat wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Many people feel it is acceptable to kill a "real person" in time of war, or in self defence, or via capital punishment.

In your opinion, would you classify an unborn child as an enemy (as in war), assailant (as in self defense) or criminal (as in capital punishment)?

As a man, it is impossible for me to have any unborn children, so I think my opinion is secondary to that of women.