What’s the difference between abortion and infanticide? Don’t feel bad if you don’t know the answer. Neither does Alberto Giubilini (Department of Philosophy of the University of Milan and the Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University) or Francesca Minerva (Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne and Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University). Here’s the abstract from their recent article “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” published in the Journal of Medical Ethics:
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue 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.
Lest you think these people are outside of the academic mainstream, the editor of the journal has this to say in defense of publishing the article:
“The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.”
Once we crossed the Rubicon by permitting the deliberate taking of a human life via abortion, we put statist bureaucrats and their pointy-headed ivory tower enablers in charge of determining who is allowed to live and who isn’t. In the long run, having already been born doesn’t make you safe from Roe v Wade, because in the long run, the only thing that keeps anyone safe is moral sanity.
SOURCE: Dave Blount - Moonbattery
No comments:
Post a Comment