Journal defends its publication of an article advocating “after-birth abortion”

posted at 6:35 pm on February 28, 2012 by Tina Korbe

The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics today defended his decision to publish an article in which two ethicists advocated “after-birth abortion.” What was truly surprising about the article, editor Julian Savulescu writes, is not that the authors find infanticide morally permissible — but, rather, that opponents to infanticide would react to the article with vehemence. From Savulescu’s defense:

What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.

What the response to this article reveals, through the microscope of the web, is the deep disorder of the modern world. Not that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement.

Savulescu might have a point that some of the responses to the article crossed the line. Of those he quoted, a couple were overtly racist and at least one was an outright death threat to anyone who would willingly perform an “after-birth abortion.” But that he doesn’t see the arguments forwarded by the authors as evidence of “the deep disorder of the modern world” is far more disturbing than comments thoughtlessly dashed off by justifiably outraged opponents of infanticide. The Blaze outlines the article’s original arguments:

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:

“Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

[...]

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.”

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

Once upon a time, abortion advocates would accuse pro-lifers of “slippery slope logic” when those pro-lifers suggested it was only a matter of time before someone would use the abortion advocates’ arguments to defend infanticide. According to Savulescu, that began to happen a long time ago — and it continues to happen today. Turns out, it is a slippery slope, after all. If humans don’t have a right to life from the moment of conception, when does the right to life kick in? The moment a human becomes a person? When is that? Who determines when? The standard becomes movable — and, consequently, impossible to uphold.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Ghastly.

ThePrez on February 28, 2012 at 6:38 PM

The Left is obsessed with killing babies. It’s so bizarre.

SouthernGent on February 28, 2012 at 6:39 PM

People who support human rights are crazed fanatics? Sweet. Count me as a crazed fanatic then!

Stoic Patriot on February 28, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Oh dear Lord

gophergirl on February 28, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Infanticide is such a distasteful term. Post-term abortion is better.

Moral idiocy is rampant in the world.

mchristian on February 28, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Only religious whack-job theists differentiate between an unwanted fetus in utero and extra-utero.

Wait, that used to be the other way around.

HitNRun on February 28, 2012 at 6:40 PM

If humans don’t have a right to life from the moment of conception, when does the right to life kick in?

When they’re 18 and out the door.

Well…That’s what my parents kept saying…
I joke…

This story is not.

Electrongod on February 28, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Is it really that much worse than before birth? Obama is OK with it…

neuquenguy on February 28, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Eugenicists gonna be eugenicists.

John the Libertarian on February 28, 2012 at 6:40 PM

What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited.

They were probably just advocating an “after-birth abortion” for the authors and the editor misunderstood what they were saying. /

sharrukin on February 28, 2012 at 6:40 PM

NOw this is nuts

gerrym51 on February 28, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Tina of the short skirt just discovered a straw man where all prolife fanatics can now strike with glee! GO!

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM

HOW DARE YOU BRING UP SOCIAL ISSUES, WINGNUTS!!!!!!!!

/sarc

Robert_Paulson on February 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Another look at Hitler?

Electrongod on February 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM

There is NO rational defense for publishing such an article. It actually made me sick to my stomach to just read the headline, and I have spoken to several others who felt the same way. There is no defense for murdering a baby. How can these people live with themselves?

lukjuj on February 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM

The Left is obsessed with killing babies. It’s so bizarre.

SouthernGent on February 28, 2012 at 6:39 PM

They’re also obsessed with killing old people.

In fact, they’re eager to kill anyone in the way of their Utopia.

In the heart of every liberal, lurks a Pol Pot.

Rebar on February 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Tina of the short skirt just discovered a straw man where all prolife fanatics can now strike with glee! GO!

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Misogynist claims straw man where none exists in order to disparage others it disagrees with.

John the Libertarian on February 28, 2012 at 6:43 PM

This is Josef Mengele territory.

We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

So severly mentally impaired get murdered too?

rbj on February 28, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Tina of the short skirt just discovered a straw man where all prolife fanatics can now strike with glee! GO!

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM

You really seem obsessed with her… and her short skirts.

sharrukin on February 28, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Misogynist claims straw man where none exists in order to disparage others it disagrees with.

John the Libertarian on February 28, 2012 at 6:43 PM

He seems to show up seconds after every contraception or abortion thread is posted. Me thinks mayor obsession going on here.

neuquenguy on February 28, 2012 at 6:44 PM

I went to The Journal of Medical Ethics to look for anything redeeming from the article.

Couldn’t find any.

Disgusting.

The future of Obamacare.

cozmo on February 28, 2012 at 6:44 PM

When they’re 18 and out the door.

Well…That’s what my parents kept saying…
I joke…

This story is not.

Electrongod on February 28, 2012 at 6:40 PM

I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it. – Love Dad

RickB on February 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Also, just plain idiocy is rampant.

mchristian on February 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM

“Savulescu might have a point that some of the responses to the article crossed the line. Of those he quoted, a couple were overtly racist and at least one was an outright death threat to anyone who would willingly perform an “after-birth abortion.”

I’m not sure why you are saying that death threats are over the top. If we can agree that infanticide is murder, then threatening a murderer with death is no different from what the law already does. Your only argument would be against vigilante justice. However, vigilante justice is justice after all, even if it’s not the best practical policy.

TheRabbi on February 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Paging Dr. Mengele, Paging Dr. Mengele…

TiminPhx on February 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Is it really that much worse than before birth? Obama is OK with it…

neuquenguy on February 28, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Yes, it is really that much worse.

MJBrutus on February 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Tina of the short skirt just discovered a straw man where all prolife fanatics can now strike with glee! GO!

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM

yep, she’s outrageously outraged lately by default, she’s almost at risk of becoming an angry and bitter woman…in the last genius post she wrote she was explaining how women who want to have sex are little less than animals who cannot control themselves…the depths of her posts are abysmal indeed…

jimver on February 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM

You know what the legal term for after birth abortion is? Murder.

SoulGlo on February 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM

You really seem obsessed with her… and her short skirts.

sharrukin on February 28, 2012 at 6:43 PM

it seemed so unproper to have such short garments in the presence of such an holy person.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Savulescu might have a point that some of the responses to the article crossed the line. Of those he quoted, a couple were overtly racist and at least one was an outright death threat to anyone who would willingly perform an “after-birth abortion.”

I ADVOCATE killing anyone who would preform an “after-birth abortion”…. it’s called the death penalty.

This argument isn’t new in philosophy circles but it’s usually given as a reason why Utilitarianism or Kantian ethics are wrong… not actually an argument to be believed.

We need lots of prayer.

demotheses on February 28, 2012 at 6:47 PM

The Left is obsessed with killing babies. It’s so bizarre.

SouthernGent on February 28, 2012 at 6:39 PM

It’s all about population control and lowering demand for products and services that their regulations/controls, as they know, always ultimately limit. It’s in their DNA.

TXUS on February 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM

I read about the article the other day at Rorate Caeli. The modernist tendency begun with the French Revolution is nearing its climax.

Vatican Watcher on February 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM

If humans don’t have a right to life from the moment of conception, when does the right to life kick in?

After the commit murder /sarc

CrazyGene on February 28, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Jesus is coming. Soon.

portlandon on February 28, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Tina of the short skirt just discovered a straw man where all prolife fanatics can now strike with glee! GO!

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM

I think that straw man is walking, talking, and advocating infanticide on its own.

Of course, I understand if it’s a bit depressing. I mean, it’s pretty much unjustifiable, and raises all sorts of rhetorical questions for an intelligent post-modern secular pro-choice atheist that he cannot actually answer.

Well, you can answer them, you just can’t say those answers out loud and maintain your illusions of fictional secular morality.

HitNRun on February 28, 2012 at 6:49 PM

it seemed so unproper to have such short garments in the presence of such an holy person.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Your name wouldn’t happen to be Buffalo Bill would it?

sharrukin on February 28, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Part of being human is being able to see yourself as part of something greater–family, nation, humanity. If you refuse, from pure self-interest, to see the other as yourself, then by what logic does anyone go to war to protect their nation, or dive into a pool to save a drowning person, or help you after you get run over on the street? Even apart from the golden rule, you should save others because you want them to save you.

RBMN on February 28, 2012 at 6:50 PM

hehe, the straw man is working! touching the screen I can feel the rage of the HA prolifers! good stuff Tina.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Truly horrifying that there are people out there who think like that. Chilling.

jennifernaz on February 28, 2012 at 6:50 PM

The truly scary thing is that these are – for the most part – theoreticians; this is merely an academic exercise for them.

It isn’t a “person”, it isn’t a “baby”, it is a chess piece to be moved or removed from the board.

Frankly, I’m not surprised that the person defending them IS so surprised by the reaction of the general public – the type of person who ends up writing an article like that tends to be the type who doesn’t “fit in” to a messy society.

They are kept in ivory towers FOR A REASON…..

TeresainFortWorth on February 28, 2012 at 6:50 PM

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

That sounds like me being sarcastic.

CW on February 28, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Once upon a time, abortion advocates would accuse pro-lifers of “slippery slope logic” when those pro-lifers suggested it was only a matter of time before someone would use the abortion advocates’ arguments to defend infanticide.

Pro-lifers discussed infanticide and euthanasia decades ago, and it was considered ridiculous.

Now here we are with death panels.

INC on February 28, 2012 at 6:51 PM

The editor is as much a depraved monster as the authors of the article.

single stack on February 28, 2012 at 6:51 PM

For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one.

It’s not to hard to realize the undesirable situation is being born to one of these leftist murderers.

HellCat on February 28, 2012 at 6:51 PM

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Much easier to spew like you do than to discuss the topic at hand eh?

CW on February 28, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Tsk, tsk. Bob McDonnell would disapprove of fighting against the Journal of Medical Ethics.

Stoic Patriot on February 28, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Give it time and today’s apologist for mass murder of killing babies to just say “the Jews of any age are not really people so just kill them” What Hitler did with 6 million they can do it to 600 million non-people.

tjexcite on February 28, 2012 at 6:52 PM

This so whacked I am still clicking on links to make sure that site is for real.

CW on February 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Newborns are now just some kind of negligible extra-uterine fetal tissue.

Love this reasoning.

Offing the article’s authors would then just be premature euthanasia without documented consent.

profitsbeard on February 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

*************** AFTER-BIRTH-ABORTION ********************

*********** Absolutely BatSh*t Loony-Tick Insane Nuts **********

canopfor on February 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Jesus is coming. Soon.

portlandon on February 28, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Yep

gophergirl on February 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

rbj on February 28, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Nah-the liberals can stay around for entertainment value.
///

annoyinglittletwerp on February 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Pro-lifers discussed infanticide and euthanasia decades ago, and it was considered ridiculous.

Now here we are with death panels.

INC on February 28, 2012 at 6:51 PM

The next step is for them to openly call for the death of the elderly.

First they came for the children.

Then they came for the Elderly.

Next they came for the…….

portlandon on February 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

So, because two doctors in Australia think that is acceptable to kill a baby after it is born, all of a sudden everybody who is pro-choice automatically agrees with them? Somebody needs to call Nicholas Cage right away, because that is one gigantic straw-man I see.

theoddmanout on February 28, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Your name wouldn’t happen to be Buffalo Bill would it?

sharrukin on February 28, 2012 at 6:50 PM

:)

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 6:54 PM

jimver on February 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM

You really think so? Because, I thought she was just explaining buy your own f’ing birth control or get some f’ing control. It did not seem bitter or angry to me.

mchristian on February 28, 2012 at 6:54 PM

“after-birth abortion”

Worst.Euphemism.Ever.

whatcat on February 28, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Give it time and today’s apologist for mass murder of killing babies to just say “the Jews of any age are not really people so just kill them” What Hitler did with 6 million they can do it to 600 million non-people.

tjexcite on February 28, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Well if they(babies) are not people test away. Heck talk about the price you could get for their organs./

I wonder is a five year old a person? A ten year old? An Obama voter?

/

CW on February 28, 2012 at 6:56 PM

The Left is obsessed with killing babies. It’s so bizarre.

SouthernGent on February 28, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Responsibility scares them.

Count to 10 on February 28, 2012 at 6:56 PM

It’s all about population control and lowering demand for products and services that their regulations/controls, as they know, always ultimately limit. It’s in their DNA.

TXUS on February 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM

They may mask in in the “stuff” argument but the real purpose is as it has always been – what the founding of Planned Parenthood was about – controlling certain brown populations.

Eventually they will get back around to it this is just another overton window -so outrageous this time people hear it and then they nudge it in by being even more outrageous with their next proposal.

Conversely in the world of real science we are finding out more and more about the developing baby and embracing the life, trying to stop the death.

batterup on February 28, 2012 at 6:57 PM

it seemed so unproper to have such short garments in the presence of such an holy person.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM

With your investigative ability you look into the Mayan Light Beam.

RickB on February 28, 2012 at 6:57 PM

I say we go ahead and stretch it out to include teenagers. That’ll keep ‘em in school. “I can still have you aborted!”

ronsfi on February 28, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Tina of the short skirt just discovered a straw man where all prolife fanatics can now strike with glee! GO!

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM

There’s nothing “fanatic” about protecting the innocent. What truly is nuts is killing babies.

Truly sickening.

darwin on February 28, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Some people just hate life so much….
Then demand me to pay for their lifestyle.

Electrongod on February 28, 2012 at 6:58 PM

So, because two doctors in Australia think that is acceptable to kill a baby after it is born, all of a sudden everybody who is pro-choice automatically agrees with them? Somebody needs to call Nicholas Cage right away, because that is one gigantic straw-man I see.

theoddmanout on February 28, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Actually you are the one selling the straw.

If humans don’t have a right to life from the moment of conception, when does the right to life kick in? The moment a human becomes a person? When is that? Who determines when? The standard becomes movable — and, consequently, impossible to uphold.

See the argument? Understand now? God we are screwed. So many dumb dishonest “persons”.

CW on February 28, 2012 at 6:58 PM

mchristian on February 28, 2012 at 6:54 PM

read her last paragraph again…assuming you didn’t have enough patience to do that when you read her piece…and I can’t blame anyone if they didn’t…here:

‘Ms. Fluke, I resent that you think women are incapable of controlling themselves, of sacrificing temporary pleasure for the sake of long-term success. You make us sound like animals, slaves to our instincts and able to be used, but we’re better than that. We’re persons, equal to men in dignity and love.’

jimver on February 28, 2012 at 6:58 PM

You really aren’t a fully formed human until you are around 40 and no one under 30 these days can survive on their own so I’m splitting the difference and saying murdering someone over 35 is wrong.

BoxHead1 on February 28, 2012 at 6:59 PM

O/T….For you Hot Gas’ers in Harms Way!

JimCantore tweeted:
*******************

At least 4 supercells in northern Kansas, some w/ #tornado warnings already, need to be watched 4possible tornadoes. Developments been quick

Submitted 14 mins ago from twitter.com/JimCantore
http://www.breakingnews.com/
=============================

canopfor on February 28, 2012 at 6:59 PM

This is where the “pro-choice” logic leads, a person is not a person until we say it is.

“Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

Open season on the special needs and developmental challenged people, how about the senile? the posibilities are endless.

neuquenguy on February 28, 2012 at 6:59 PM

For those shocked that this comes from a journal of medical “ethics,” don’t be. One of the overlooked aspects of the decline of academia is that “ethics” — that is, that academic subset of Philosophy — is a discipline that now almost entirely means its traditional opposite.

I took “ethics” classes in college and it was mostly the study of applying quasi-mathematical logic (as in other fields of Philosophy), but in Ethics this practice was utilize to “prove” pre-existing moral conclusions. My personal favorite was when we “proved” that not only was abortion moral, but George W. Bush’s suspension of abortion programs for foreign nations was provably immoral.

HitNRun on February 28, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Much easier to spew like you do than to discuss the topic at hand eh?

CW on February 28, 2012 at 6:52 PM

what to discuss? the whole idea seems disgusting to me. whatever ethics these people claim, killing real babies its to spartan for my taste.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 6:59 PM

the whole idea seems disgusting to me. whatever ethics these people claim, killing real babies its to spartan for my taste.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Wow you just discussed it. Congrats!!

Are you on a Jihad against Tina? Get a friggin life.

CW on February 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Open season on the special needs and developmental challenged people, how about the senile? the posibilities are endless.

neuquenguy on February 28, 2012 at 6:59 PM

That’s what it’s all about … reaching the goal in small steps. First get everyone used to abortions, then late term abortions, call babies a burden, then get everyone used to killing newborns … then progress to the disabled, the chronically ill, the elderly. The left does not stop.

darwin on February 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM

The banality of evil is staggering:

“…proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

When did murder become a ‘value’??

locomotivebreath1901 on February 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM

The logical and necessary end of abortion on demand. Liberals have adopted a racially cleansed version of Nazism. Instead of just dehumanizing on group of people like the Nazis did, Liberals dehumanize all of us.

Blue Collar Todd on February 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM

I was asking a pro-abortion commenter the other day why “fetal homicide” was unacceptable, but “abortion” isn’t. He absolutely wouldn’t answer me. I found that rather bone-chilling, but this takes the cake.

gryphon202 on February 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Possibly the most disgusting thing I have ever read! These low-lifes claim liberalism is for the little guy! What a frickin’ joke! Liberalism is the epitome of selfishness! “I want my gubmint cheese! Pay for my birth control! Food stamps now! Section 8! Car allowance! How can you expect me to alter my life to accomodate this lump of cells that just fell out of my body! Away with it!” Life begins when 2 halves of the whole come together! Any questions?????

Sasha List on February 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM

killing babies, contrary to popular leftist belief, is neither the bestest or the “bees knees”

DHChron on February 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM

One day we will have the perfect “person”.

CW on February 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM

After-birth abortion or infanticide. Whatever.

The victims were unavailable for comment.

av8tr on February 28, 2012 at 7:03 PM

So, because two doctors in Australia think that is acceptable to kill a baby after it is born, all of a sudden everybody who is pro-choice automatically agrees with them? Somebody needs to call Nicholas Cage right away, because that is one gigantic straw-man I see.

theoddmanout on February 28, 2012 at 6:54 PM

If a woman wants to terminate the post uterine fetus, it’s her choice.
These wingnuts have no right to impose their values.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on February 28, 2012 at 7:03 PM

You really aren’t a fully formed human until you are around 40 and no one under 30 these days can survive on their own so I’m splitting the difference and saying murdering someone over 35 is wrong.

BoxHead1 on February 28, 2012 at 6:59 PM

If you go to by cigs or beer and not get carded…
You are now “in the club”.
Welcome human.

Electrongod on February 28, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Tina of the short skirt just discovered a straw man where all prolife fanatics can now strike with glee! GO!
nathor on February 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Defend away dooshbag

I’ll get some popcorn

Sonosam on February 28, 2012 at 7:03 PM

With your investigative ability you look into the Mayan Light Beam.

RickB on February 28, 2012 at 6:57 PM

its real! its 2012 and we are all going to die soon/

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Open season on the special needs and developmental challenged people, how about the senile? the posibilities are endless.

How about conservatives? Then they would not have to use death panels.

HellCat on February 28, 2012 at 7:05 PM

WOW i am glad you posted about this article. i have not heard of it. glad i did. everyone should go to the original article, i read a PDF, it’s only 6 pages. read the argument that these creeps put forth for killing babies. it’s very disturbing. they ramble on about “potential people” and “actual people” and twist logic so many times… you all have got to read it!!

just yesterday was the article about “omg my old sick father is soooo annoying, i wish he would just die already and stop interruping my life.” and we were commenting on this growing pattern: life’s value is being reduced both at the end of life, and beginning. i asked yesterday, how far will this go? where will it go next? did i mention that the infanticide article mentioned here is very disturbing? because it is…

Sachiko on February 28, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Just so I understand…
.
Killing babies, inside or outside the uterus: OK
Death penalty for cop-killers: Not OK
.
Got it.

the_moll on February 28, 2012 at 7:05 PM

which often depends on mental development, determines personhood.

And this advances the argument to both mentaly deficient kids, who might be 18 or 19 years old physicaly, and the elderly if they start nodding off. Or basicaly anyone who does not measure up to the author’s standards, and who happens to be unwanted. Although expect the unwanted standard to fall on the sword of burden to society such that even if your kid or parent is wanted by you, the government will be able to kill them for the good of society. Merge this with media rhetoric calling conservatives or christians idiotic, and you have a basis for the elite to kill anyone without calling it murder.

It may take a few years to get there, but because such ideas are tolerated now, who actualy believes the inexorable course will be reversed? This not some KKK neonazi fringe idea confined to the fringe. It is academics maintaining their position, continualy expousing it with all of the force of thier credentials beheind it, published, defended with the same kind of language used to disparage anyone who disagrees with them as any other leftist cause, and gladly received by the media who willingly repeat all sorts of evil untruths already.

AnotherOpinion on February 28, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Give it time and today’s apologist for mass murder of killing babies to just say “the Jews of any age are not really people so just kill them” What Hitler did with 6 million they can do it to 600 million non-people.

tjexcite on February 28, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Well if they(babies) are not people test away. Heck talk about the price you could get for their organs./

I wonder is a five year old a person? A ten year old? An Obama voter?

/

CW on February 28, 2012 at 6:56 PM

~~~~~~~

5 years old, maybe, if it’s an especially precocious one. Jeez, again, it’s impssible to parody these people. “The deep disorder of the modern world”…I totally agree, except they say that in RESPONSE to peoples’ anger over killing babies!

ellifint on February 28, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Whoa whoa whoa, people!

I think the “liberal” (pun intended) use of sarc tags in this post is called for. I need to be able to tell at a glance who the morbid ghouls are as opposed to the people mocking them!

gryphon202 on February 28, 2012 at 7:06 PM

“after-birth abortion”

Worst.Euphemism.Ever.

whatcat on February 28, 2012 at 6:56 PM

hear, hear

DHChron on February 28, 2012 at 7:07 PM

I’m pro-life and I think Tina’s assertions are just dumb. It’s a Medical Ethics journal. It’s meant to raise all sorts of viewpoints in the medical community. There’s nothing wrong with them publishing this.

Hostile Gospel on February 28, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Nah-the liberals can stay around for entertainment value.
///

annoyinglittletwerp on February 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Heh!

rbj on February 28, 2012 at 7:07 PM

http://environment.about.com/b/2006/04/17/reduce-human-beings-by-90-percent-to-solve-environmental-woes-says-scientist.htm

According to Professor Eric Pianka, a specialist in herpetology and evolutionary ecology who was named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist by the Texas Academy of Science, human beings have strained Earth’s natural resources to the breaking point, leaving the planet “parched.”

Pianka believes the solution to this crisis is to eliminate the cause, by decreasing the number of human beings living on Earth from 6.5 billion to around 700 million—a 90 percent reduction.

Pianka is convinced that Nature eventually will exterminate the majority of humans through widespread disease or other effects of global warming—and he seems delighted at the prospect.

This is really an exciting time,” he told the audience at a recent presentation of his “doomsday talk,” which is designed to raise awareness about the dangers of overpopulation and excess demands on the environment. “Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine.”

They really are out there waiting and hoping to gain power over their fellow man.

sharrukin on February 28, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Tina of the short skirt just discovered a straw man where all prolife fanatics can now strike with glee! GO!

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM

straw man? did you read the original article? i did. go read the article about why it’s okay to kill babies, and i would love to see how you possibly defend that position. go!!

Sachiko on February 28, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Disgusting.

The future of Obamacare.

cozmo on February 28, 2012 at 6:44 PM

I wouldn’t say this is the future, unfortunately. More like right around the corner.

That’s what it’s all about … reaching the goal in small steps. First get everyone used to abortions, then late term abortions, call babies a burden, then get everyone used to killing newborns … then progress to the disabled, the chronically ill, the elderly. The left does not stop.

darwin on February 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM

It’s not really small steps anymore. This stuff is going to accelerate as Western Civilization declines. An increasingly large portion of the left is fascinated by the idea that if they just murder enough people, eventually we will arrive at some sort of utopia.

Doomberg on February 28, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Of all the horrible things people can do, to kill an innocent baby, especially your own baby, seems to me about the most inherently evil thing possible. An otherwise sane person who says that’s okay is utterly lacking in moral sense or human compassion or any other redeeming qualities as far as I can see. IMHO abortion advocates have only gotten as far as they have because they did before the advent of ultrasounds … you know, the whole “it’s just a blob of tissue” garbage. To see the baby and still think it’s okay to kill him/her is just so far beyond the pale.

toby11 on February 28, 2012 at 7:08 PM

I need to be able to tell at a glance who the morbid ghouls are as opposed to the people mocking them!

gryphon202 on February 28, 2012 at 7:06 PM

did someone mention me?

GhoulAid on February 28, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Just so I understand…
.
Killing babies, inside or outside the uterus: OK
Death penalty for cop-killers: Not OK
.
Got it.

the_moll on February 28, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Interesting. I guess we can assume the two authors could argue as vehemently for the death penalty. Heck at least at that point we know who those people really are.

CW on February 28, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4