Home » Australia, Breaking News, Crimes, Immorality » Australian paper says Euthanizing Babies should be Allowed as Abortion


Australian paper says Euthanizing Babies should be Allowed as Abortion

 
 
 
 
 
submit to reddit

A paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible, even if the baby is perfectly healthy, in a shocking example of how the medical establishment is still dominated by a vicious mindset.

The paper is authored by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

“The fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant,” the authors claim, arguing that adoption is not a reasonable counter-argument because the parents of the baby might be economically or psychologically burdened the process and the mother may “suffer psychological distress”. How the mother could not also “suffer psychological distress” by having her newborn baby killed is not explained.

“Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal,” the authors write.

The practice of infanticide has its origins in barbaric eras of ancient history, but it is still common is many areas of the world today, including China where the one child policy allied with the social pressure to have boys has resulted in a massive imbalance in the population. Studies have found that 40 million girls are ‘missing’ in China as a result of gender-selective abortion and infanticide. In India, there are 50 million less females for the same reasons.

In Pakistan, over 1000 babies a year are the victims of infanticide, which is rarely punished.

Matthew Archbold of the National Catholic Register explains how the legalization of infanticide, killing newborn babies, is the logical conclusion of the starting point of the argument, which is that the fetus is not human and has no right to live.

“The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand,” he writes.

Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals.

“Or to put it another way, too often bioethics, isn’t. On the other hand, to be fair, the ancient Romans exposed inconvenient infants on hills. These authors may want to take us back to those crass values, but I assume they would urge a quicker death,” he writes.

Source

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
Australian paper says Euthanizing Babies should be Allowed as Abortion, 5.0 out of 5 based on 1 rating
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  



RELATED ARTICLES

Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

21 Responses to " Australian paper says Euthanizing Babies should be Allowed as Abortion "

  1. Defiant says:

    Fucking satanist nazis I hope You will rot in hell, You are the ones who arent Humans not the inocent babys!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +14 (from 16 votes)
    • Kael says:

      @defiant if by nazis you mean ashkenazis

      http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/bernconv.txt

      There may be a deeper reason to Nathanson’s disenchantment, the rabbi guesses, which has to do with the high level of jews involved in the abortion business. Nathanson has written of the
      high percentage of jewish abortionists. The new national leader of planned parenthood, who comes on board in June, is Gloria Feldt, a jew.

      “I believe that Bernard Nathanson’s conversion to Catholicism is spurred not by theological deficiencies in a judaism I don’t believe he knew but by a deep compelling desire to distance himself from a faith whose secular wing has embraced abortion with a fervor,” Lapin says.

      “And there’s no question about it. Boston Herald columnist Don Feder points out nearly half of the religious organizations endorsing abortion are Jewish in spite of Jews being 2.3 percent of the U.S. population, not 50 percent. The Jewish community is disproportionately represented in the pro-abortion movement. This taking up the cudgels for abortion is not by any means an expression of Judaism. It is a rejection of God and a rejection of the religious core of Judaism, and in those terms I understand why Bernard Nathanson had to seek another faith.”

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
      • philkeup@yahoo.com says:

        The core of judaism is satanic. Read the babalonian talmud and see it is a religion based on self worship and the Holy Serpant. They believe they invented god and therefore can play God and jesus in in hell boiling in a vat of excrement. the number 6000000000 has satanic kabalistic significance. Auschwitz is the new temple for them. America is their slave

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        • Candice says:

          What crap. Jews don’t even believe in Satan you idiot. Jesus was born a Jew and was a great teacher (as a Jew I am more than willing to acknowledge this). And Jews don’t believe they invested G-d – he CREATED US – even the stupid and the ignorant. As you so obviously believe in the concept of hell, may you boil in a Vat of excrement.

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. JanB says:

    Killing newborns is beyond outrageous, nowadays there are enough nonviolent measures one can take to prevent conception. People who ignore that will also ignore speed limits, issues like driving under influence, gambling with borrowed money on Wall Street and many more asocial actions. Such people ought to be selected for psychological treatment early in life as to prevent transformation into psychopaths.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +6 (from 6 votes)
  3. Vlad the Impaler says:

    satanists yes,not sure about nazis.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 6 votes)
    • karen says:

      if you actually KNEW anything about satanists in general, you would know they DO NOT practice ANY form of killing.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -4 (from 4 votes)
      • karen says:

        human or animal sacrifice that is. many are omnivores, which is flesh for food/meat

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -4 (from 4 votes)
  4. Rick Alexander says:

    I think the only euthanasia that should be permitted is on the two Monash University professors Giubilini and Minerva. They are a disgrace to the human race and the Vice Chancellor of the University of Monash should terminate their employment, then deprive them of their food and sustanance and let them slowly die.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)
  5. Charles Darwin says:

    We are on the path to moral depravity, next will be the moral right to euthanise cumbersome elderlies on grounds of financial hardship. Westerndom needs to go back to its roots.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +6 (from 6 votes)
    • Wanda Anderson says:

      I agree with your comment on abortion as a form of birth control and euthanizing the cumbersome elderly. We will be judged unfavorably if we use these heartless procedures.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  6. Karl says:

    “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,”

    I would have to say that the authors of the paper are the ones who do not have the same morals as an actual person!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +10 (from 10 votes)
  7. John says:

    I appreciate the unique coverage this website provides. However, it clearly has a conservative religious bias ( aka a Christian-right” bias). Nothing wrong with that but there are reasonable and good people that have different views.

    The view that “every life is sacred”is often hypocritical. The Religious Right cares FAR more about “life” from conception to birth than it does after a child is born. Where is the concern about the quality of that child’s life after he or she passes out of the womb? (Every social science study out there shows that children that are not wanted and loved have higher rates of drug use, pregnancy, dropping out of high-school, committing crimes, etc.) And why is it okay to beat homosexuals to death? Why is it okay to allow our country to bomb and kill civilians in foreign lands? Why is it okay to let children die of starvation or disease in other parts of the world if a few dollars would save them? Why is it okay to kill someone that breaks in to your home? And extending this even further, why is it okay to slaughter intelligent animals to eat?

    Where is the outrage for the loss of all this other life?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)
    • Doug says:

      This comment is superfluous, it has no place in this debate, to suggest that just it does is to say that just because we ignore them means it is okay to kill them, foolish! This article is about the murder of newborns, the outrage is directed at the murder of post birth nor pre birth individual lives. Your argument puts forward that just because someone is more likely to take drugs or become a criminal means we shouldn’t give them the chance kill them now because of their possible social actions in the future. Further the death of thousands as a result of starvation or disease is unfortunate and likely to cause distress and while we do view these deaths as “wrong,” it is not a result of legalised murder. Grow a set of balls and openly say that you support the murder of infants, don’t wrap your arguments in quasi anti-religous bollocks that has little or no relevance to this article or the arguments that is inspires.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    • Jack Longchamp says:

      John you are quite right but these guys here mostly have
      a very limited intellectual base (this being in the nature of the
      “Christian Right”) and not a shred of humor…
      also they cannot comprehend that filling up the planet
      with more Sapies will lead to a different form of euthanasia –
      but that is of course a more natural one so God must be willing it :
      Deus lo vult – it ends where it began, with space and with silence.
      Not a pity.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  8. kerdasi amaq says:

    Well, one of my employees(a former pro-wrestling star, or so he says) is in favour of certain post-partum terminations of pregnancy, but his views are so extreme; even pro-choice people would be compelled to oppose him.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  9. יהודונים מזיין, אפשר להפסיק עם השטויות. אפשר לחשוב שגברים הארורים עם micropenises, על ידי G_d, כי הם גם היו צריכים לחתוך, ילמד קבלה של חוסר אונים ואולי ענווה, כלקח של G_d, אבל מתברר שלא … נו, טוב. אולי: “אלוהים קומי ביותר” רק הדעה שלי …

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -4 (from 6 votes)
    • Jack Longchamp says:

      Man : not fair !

      I must protest, you could at least have had the leniency to talk Yiddish ;)

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  10. Fred says:

    john from the US, you assumption that christians believe life is ONLY sacred at birth, is incorrect, perhaps it’s becasue you have failed to actually read a bible. Jesus teaches that ALL life is sacred and that all is capable of repenting and seeking our lord and savior. to say that we don’t believe all life is sacred is false my friend. even you are loved by God. but God gave us all a set of laws to live by. not laws written by man, but by our heavenly father. and his laws were given to us so we may live in peace. read it and learn to understand it. a true christian, a follower of Christ, believes all life is sacred and worthy as it was given to us from God. think about it. and read about and don’t fall for the traps of secularism. man will always fail. but Gos has never failed.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  11. Jack Longchamp says:

    Well if I really think this through I end up with termination or call
    it abortion being allowed till 150 years (that IS liberal, in´t it ?)
    after birth, but only if it is err, executed by a government official.
    Of course. I mean, otherwise anybody could…

    But correctly err executed, what could be illegal about that ?
    And what with 7 billion of us monkeys going on 8,
    it doesn´t really make one hell of a difference anyways.

    Hey err, look at the bright side ;)
    Want my HONEST opinion ? I don´t give a f..k (facebook).

    And Fred, I agree : Gos has never failed yet – how could he, Gosh !
    Being omnipotent and all ?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -2 (from 4 votes)
  12. Vicky says:

    The Bible says in the last days, Right will seem wrong, and wrong will seem right (paraphrase).

    We live in a sick world, and we will be judged by God Almighty.

    Repent, get ready… Jesus will return for his Bride.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply


Copyright © 2009 The European Union Times – Breaking News, Latest News. All rights reserved.