KILLING NEWBORNS (Out of the womb babies) IS NOW OKAY! 2 Out Of 2 Doctors Agree, It should be legalized?
The subject of whether or not abortion is moral has been argued for many years. Whether or not an unborn fetus is considered a life or a person is one of the key issues. Ethical philosophers have been struggling with the concept for years on both sides of the issue. But what about killing a baby well after birth? Should mothers who, for example, drown their children or have babies and throw them in dumpsters etc. be legally free to do so? There is a growing community of ethicists who think so. Two medical ethicists have recently written a paper which has been published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. This paper is titled: After-birth Abortion: Why Should The Baby Live? Albert Giubilini from the University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva from the University of Melbourne wrote the paper and stated that newborns and fetuses do not have the same moral status as actual persons. They also said that killing newborns should be legal in all cases that abortion is.
The issue of whether or not an infant is a person had been settled in ethical philosophy for quite some time before this paper was published. The verdict? An infant is not a person. The argument for this stems from the five traits accepted by the ethical world to be central to the concept of personhood in the moral sense.
1. consciousness (of objects and events external/internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain.
2. reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems)
3. self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control)
4. the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics
5. the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness.
So these medical ethicists say they have proven that a newborn infant has no more moral rights than a fetus. They argue that birth is only a change of location, not a change from non-personhood to personhood. They go into great detail and length in their paper on the logical conclusion they have come to. They feel that the laws should not punish mothers who kill their infants. They stated that even if the infant is not mentally deficient or physically disabled it should be legal to dispose of it.
My take on this? When you read everything they say in detail, then yes it makes sense, in a purely LOGICAL way. We are not Vulcans! We have emotions and we have them for a reason. When my emotions scream that this is wrong I think I will listen to them. If these guys were just writing a paper and wanted the their peers and others to accept the logic of their statement, then fine. We should be free in this world to study concepts such as this and come to voice conclusions. But to actually push for this to become legal?
Crazy. No matter what age and condition of the mind a human being is in, they deserve the chance to live. I feel that the potential of personhood is enough to not consider this. We consider the needless killing of a puppy or kitten to be a crime in the U.S. It is called animal abuse. Why would it be okay to kill a newborn but not an animal? Would puppy and kitten killing become legal as well? We could have You Tube videos of kittens being killed. “Batter up Billy, this one is so fat and furry, this is real “soft” ball.” I mean, c’mon.
Some people will not even consider the philosophical deepness of this subject to even look at the other side. Emotion will take over and they will lash out instantly against the subject. That is understandable, but medical and philosophical ethicists are only looking at the subject as if they are unattached. They see it as something to be analyzed on a different level. They feel that if they have proved a fetus is not a person and has no moral aspects or responsibilities, and have none of the traits that constitute a person, than they do not have personhood and by that argument, neither does an infant.
I appreciate that they want to look at things from a different perspective but to want to legalize killing your baby? What would be the point of propagating at that point? Maybe these guys’ thinking is so advanced it is beyond me and you. Who knows. If it is, then they should have kept their mouths shut because if infanticide was legalized sh*t would get crazy up in here.
The human race is so immature in so many ways how could we handle something like that? (If we ever wanted it for some reason). The mothers that want to kill their babies would not have to hold back for selfish reasons like being imprisoned for their actions. Yes there would be a slippery slope, damn right, you know it.
The child murderers would rejoice. There are already sick sick dudes out there who rape babies. This would be free reign wouldn’t you say? Sick pedophiles out there saying who cares they aren’t people, abuse them six ways from sunday, who cares? It’s legal. Didn’t think of that did you Al and Fran? Just got lost in the wonderful vortex of logical ultra logic. They probably obsessed so much about this they put emotional blocks on and were unable to take them off. They stayed up nights trying to solve this matter in the most logical, practical way and BINGO! They ran with their answers. Like a panicked horse wearing blinders they charged straight forward and off the cliff, dragging their wagon of sanity with them.
Here's a link to a news article about it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9117804/Abortion-article-author-receives-death-threats.html
More by this Author
Expose yourself, bare it all. Everything you are is there for the taking. Learn a valuable lesson, pull up the drawbridge, fill the moat with alligators, and stay safe and sane.
The fateful Battle of Stamford bridge between King Harold Godwinson of England and King Harald Hardrada of Norway, which precipited the Battle of Hastings in 1066. One solitary viking warrior stood on a bridge and...