In the Journal of Medical Ethics, two academicians Alberto Giublini and Francesca Minerva, argue that newborn babies are not "actual persons" and do not have a "moral right to life" and further argue that parents should be able to have their babies killed if it turns out to be disabled when it's born. So now we have people proposing that newborns are not actual persons and should be killed off especially when they are born disabled. How long before the liberals argue that newborns should be killed off because like a fetus, it's just cells and a difference of 8 months. After all it's not a real person yet. I give em a year.
Do you have a link to that story?
And no one in their right mind would call for the killing of newborns.
I linked it, Susan, maybe from a different quarter.
Excellent article thanks for linking Cassie.
This woman has done more for the anti-abortion brigade in one day, than they could ever hope for in 20 years or more.
By comparing the newborn baby to the unborn baby, she has raised the unborn baby's status a thousand times.
If, as she says, there is no difference, then perhaps public opinion might demand an end to abortions.
Most people in the developed wold would disagree, but globally and historically it's not a particularly unusual position. Biblical law granted parents life or death power over their children and it's far from alone in doing so. Infanticide has been so prevalent in most human societies that some estimates suggest that as many as 40% of all children ever born may have been deliberately killed by their parents.
I didn't say it was okay. I said acting shocked that such a viewpoint exists is either deeply disingenuous or deeply ignorant. Probably, given Cassie's proclivities, the former.
I don't see the words "acting shocked" did I miss them?
Well, I'm shocked, so I guess I'm ignorant. I'm always shocked by horrific murders and torture, too, even though both have been going on since mankind has walked the earth.
I wonder, however, if this article wasn't written in the same vein as Swift's "A Modest Proposal."
To kerryg and habee: I read the story and what the two medical ethicists are saying that abortion is akin to killing newborn children. They did not advocate killing newborn children. What their premise is that the fact of abortion being legal is leading towards the slippery slope of killing newborn children. The medical ethicists are contending that if the fetus is not considered human, then soon the newborn child will not be considered human. To kerryg, you are right regarding the OP's reasoning. As usual the OP misinterpreted the article, oh well......
I wish I could say I was still shocked. I wrote a hub on infanticide a couple years ago and learned all sorts of horrifying things I kind of wish I didn't know. Unwanted girls and disabled children of either sex were routinely disposed of in the most horrific manners in some societies. I thought the Greeks and Romans leaving babies outside to die of exposure was bad, but it's a fairly pleasant fate compared to what some have done.
It makes me wonder what life must have been like for the poor mothers - suffering through pregnancy and childbirth in a time when it could easily have killed them, only to have their babies taken from them at birth and killed in front of their eyes. If you're poor and in a Sophie's Choice type situation it must be awful enough, but even well-to-do families did it in some societies. In ancient Delphi, for example, only 1% of families in the entire city had more than one daughter.
Two people have an extreme opinion.
This is suprising why?
How much of the planet does one person destroy for their own survival? Another person - more destruction of nature. Nice to be so important that the one is
is all consuming, and the other has no consequence whatever. Would think there might be some sort of equation in there. Must be the higher math.
The odd thing about that article is that Francesca Minerva has received death threats over it.
Come on, either you value life or you don't.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … birth.html
I loved this comment from a reader -
"You see.. Did she stop to think that maybe the death threats are coming from people who might see her as a 'not actual person' because of her beliefs? The problem with opening your mouth if all you have to say is controversial opinions and beliefs, is that there's always someone who is dafter than you. Which this lady has just found out to her cost.. A lesson learned hopefully."
by RKHenry 9 years ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8076253.stmMan, dead over abortion. I thought we were out of the darkages. This is what happens when people stop talking. This is what happens when people forget to live like people. Abortion is a right and it is protected by law. ...
by cathylynn99 6 years ago
i disagree with the death penalty for several reasons.it's not a deterrant. in one study, murder rates actually rose after an execution. it was as if the stae were saying, "it's okay to kill. we do."there but for the grace of god go i. the only reasons i'm not a murderer are good genes...
by Scott S Bateman 2 years ago
The abortion debate is dominated by two extremes. On the one side, "pro life" extremists insist that abortion is murder. On the other side, "pro choice" extremists insist that abortion is a personal choice.I have met quite a few people who think they belong to one or the other....
by Grey Temples 4 years ago
Does it really matter that the recent execution was so called 'Botched" Let's look at the situation:1. Murdered a young girl by shooting her and buried her alive in a shallow grave where she died a painful and horrible death.2. He resisted being put on the gurney, was tazed, doctor was...
by Mike Russo 4 months ago
Our thoughts and prayers are with you and the victims is not enough to stop these senseless killings.
by MrMaranatha 8 months ago
What was the first Death in the Bible?According to the Bible what was the first Death recorded? And who Killed it? Why??
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|