Immanuel
Gold Member
- May 15, 2007
- 16,828
- 2,269
- 183
Note for complete disclosure: these two "ethicists" stretching the word there, are from Australia not America.
Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After-Birth Abortions | TheBlaze.com
Of course they don't want to call it what it really is... infanticide. I wouldn't want to either.
I'm almost afraid to guess who on this board will be defending this idea. I would bet TM for sure, but who else?
Does this disgust anyone else besides me?
Immie
Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After-Birth Abortions | TheBlaze.com
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.
<snip>
The two are quick to note that they prefer the term after-birth abortion as opposed to infanticide. Why? Because it [emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which abortions in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.
<snip>
The authors counter the argument that these potential persons have the right to reach that potential by stating it is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.
Of course they don't want to call it what it really is... infanticide. I wouldn't want to either.
I'm almost afraid to guess who on this board will be defending this idea. I would bet TM for sure, but who else?
Does this disgust anyone else besides me?
Immie