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

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’re insane.

darwin on February 28, 2012 at 7:09 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

So do you think the Hipocratic Oath’s admonition against abortion is out-dated, then?

gryphon202 on February 28, 2012 at 7:09 PM

After-birth-abortion; how long after? 1 minute? one hour? 10 years? Shouldn’t it be called ‘retro-active’ birth control?

LizardLips on February 28, 2012 at 7:10 PM

After-birth-abortion; how long after? 1 minute? one hour? 10 years? Shouldn’t it be called ‘retro-active’ birth control?

LizardLips on February 28, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Birth control that happens after birth. That is RICH!

gryphon202 on February 28, 2012 at 7:10 PM

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.

So, to this mental midget, anything that isn’t murderous, treasonous, liberal progressive behavior is not acceptable and should be punished somehow.

Gawd, I really hope the aliens are watching and developing a virus that aborts progressives at birth. That ought to help clear up the gene pool a bit.

Wolfmoon on February 28, 2012 at 7:10 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.”

?
Yes, I agree… we all need to calm down. They only want to kill newborns. People need to be reasonable here.

I’m sure generations past would have been very very reasonable with people who proposed a policy of killing of newborns.

JellyToast on February 28, 2012 at 7:11 PM

There is a reason pro choicers refuse to discuss when life begins and instead argue “viability”, they can move the target at will.

neuquenguy on February 28, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Liberals love killing innocent children. Rather it be via abortion,letting rapist and child murderers out of prison early, or 1000′s of other ways satan-I mean liberals-think up to kill innocent children.

mcplumbercuda on February 28, 2012 at 7:12 PM

If you really care about suffering as a concept, than all you smug self-righteous anti-abortion crusades are barking up the wrong tree.

Open up your mind to the much bigger reality of suffering, both human and otherwise.

This video, if you have the intellectual honesty to view it, will explain to you why your thought process is not serving the goal you think it is.

keep the change on February 28, 2012 at 7:12 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

They were not just bringing up the idea they were advocating it. Sorry that is just wrong.

CW on February 28, 2012 at 7:12 PM

You’re insane.

darwin on February 28, 2012 at 7:09 PM

I think he ran out of sarcasm tags?

sharrukin on February 28, 2012 at 7:12 PM

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

Or those with Alzheimer’s, or Multiple Sclerosis, or…

Hill60 on February 28, 2012 at 7:12 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

I concur. And the radical left has said as much. In fact, Obama’s babysitter and BFF William Ayers HAS STATED that it would take the murder of at least 25 million white folk to bring about their utopia.

They are communists. They will murder. They will detain.

It’s just a matter of time now.

tom daschle concerned on February 28, 2012 at 7:12 PM

postnatal abortion is alive and well in many places in the world.

It’s completely consistent with “Every Child a Wanted Child”. If you don’t want the child, there’s a process available for you to rid yourself of the inconvenience.

In fact, we’ve even found that it works on people who are adult children — the so-called “honor killings” in which Momma helps out.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/24/honor-killings-buffalo-arizona-trials-prove-happening/

Again the mantra: “Every Child a Wanted Child.”

unclesmrgol on February 28, 2012 at 7:13 PM

I think he ran out of sarcasm tags?

sharrukin on February 28, 2012 at 7:12 PM

I hope so.

darwin on February 28, 2012 at 7:13 PM

keep the change on February 28, 2012 at 7:12 PM

We get it reprobate…good lord you are a mentally ill person.

tom daschle concerned on February 28, 2012 at 7:13 PM

keep the change on February 28, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Go hate life on your own . You’re the smug as*hole .I am not surprised that by your silence on the subject at hand that you support the killing of born human persons.

CW on February 28, 2012 at 7:14 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

At one time, pro-lifers were called extremists and nuts for claiming that abortion on demand cheapened human life and might lead to infanticide and euthanasia.

Now, pro-lifers are being called extremists and nuts for objecting to infanticide and euthanasia.

I should make it clear at this point that I would consider it wrong to perform an after-birth abortion on the authors of this journal article.

But I wouldn’t want to impose my morality on anyone else.

tom on February 28, 2012 at 7:14 PM

If you really care about suffering as a concept, than all you smug self-righteous anti-abortion crusades are barking up the wrong tree.

Open up your mind to the much bigger reality of suffering, both human and otherwise.

This video, if you have the intellectual honesty to view it, will explain to you why your thought process is not serving the goal you think it is.

keep the change on February 28, 2012 at 7:12 PM

You getting this, libs? THIS is a straw man.

gryphon202 on February 28, 2012 at 7:14 PM

keep the change on February 28, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Oh and to all the others whining about straw men….see KTCs post. Now that is a straw man.

CW on February 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Too many liberals want to kill all of our weak & defenseless, whether they’re babies, the elderly, or the handicapped.

Thanks, Darwin, for implying that the survival of the fittest should become our creed.

Hitler certainly was a big Darwin fan. Nietzsche & Stalin, too.

itsnotaboutme on February 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Having read the article, these guys seem to be engaging in a reductio ad absurdum argument.

They probably have the good folks at Planned Parenthood squirming in their seats.

Good on them.

unclesmrgol on February 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Wow – the Brave New World is not very brave is it? The weakest and most vulnerable are killed and not protected. Heroic virtue is needed now more than ever. Oh Lord come to our assistance.

Fuquay Steve on February 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Anyone who does not instinctively want to clutch a newborn to their bosom is evil.

Basilsbest on February 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

You getting this, libs? THIS is a straw man.

gryphon202 on February 28, 2012 at 7:14 PM

!

CW on February 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Perhaps there should be after birth abortions for supporters of after birth abortion.

Ceteris Paribus on February 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

It’s barbaric, of course.

Someone should change the photo that goes with this story on the home page from a baby in utero to a newborn. This shouldn’t be confused with abortion.

Pundette on February 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

When do they gain personhood?

When they first vote Democrat

foreman3 on February 28, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Justice Blackmun, who found a right to Abortion hidden in the Constitution, also said “The death penalty experiment has failed. I shall no longer tinker with the machinery of death”.

Perhaps if he were alive today, he would realize that the abortion experiment has also failed, and that it is time to stop tinkering with that machinery, as well.

Haiku Guy on February 28, 2012 at 7:16 PM

“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’.

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.

These read like the words spoken by slave holders and Nazis in support of their own inhuman beliefs.

ray on February 28, 2012 at 7:17 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

it’s just an article containing an awfully extreme and untenable position (IMO) from 2 doctors from Australia…it’s free speech, they have a right to express their ideas and the publisher to publish it, whether you like it or not and despite how outrageous it is to most people…and Julian Savulescu, the editor (or was he the publisher?), made a very good point in his article…what do you suggest? put a fatwa on the authors? besides, it’s Australia, what up with the outrageous outrage?…why do you care?…oh, yeah, I forgot…invade the antipodes before their subversive ideas spread…duuude…

jimver on February 28, 2012 at 7:17 PM

This isn’t a new argument. Peter Singer has been saying the same thing for decades. It’s the logical conclusion to creating a subclass of non-person humans so that you can kill them. Once you accept the premise that not all humans are persons, and that non-person humans can be killed, infanticide is just a matter of definition.

Vera on February 28, 2012 at 7:18 PM

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

your complete lack of understanding what tina said is what’s abysmal. she said that THE LEFT acts like women are just wild animals with no control over their sexual desires.

and… there is a difference between “wanting to have sex” and being a slut who sleeps with a ton of people because she is desperate for attention. that is the kind of person who was begging for gov’t funded contraception, that is the kind of person tina was criticizing. you completely got it wrong and are now bashing tina for no reason.

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

oh sure they have a right to free speech and they can publish this if they feel like it. the “wrong” though is very obvious, it’s MORALLY wrong, not legally. it’s important for tina and other conservative bloggers to spread awareness of these disturbing viewpoints so we can highlight the moral wrongs and confront them. if we don’t, this trend of devaluing life will continue on to devalue more and more people. curent victims: elderly people, babies. next victims: probably disabled people of all ages!!

Sachiko on February 28, 2012 at 7:18 PM

choose life. your mother did.

period. end of story. you’re welocme.

GhoulAid on February 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

It’s barbaric, of course.

Someone should change the photo that goes with this story on the home page from a baby in utero to a newborn. This shouldn’t be confused with abortion.

Pundette on February 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

It’s the natural progression, from abortion to partial-birth abortion to post-birth abortion. What has really changed for the babies in these cases other than the gestational age?

neuquenguy on February 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

ou’re the smug as*hole .I am not surprised that by your silence on the subject at hand that you support the killing of born human persons.

CW on February 28, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Silence? Since when have I been silent on this issue? Even though I will be attacked, and hated, as you people specialize in, that also serves my purpose of discrediting the character of those who believe in these radical beliefs and have these radical views of how the country should be run.

If you don’t want to have abortion, I will respect that choice.

keep the change on February 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

How long is God going to stand by and allow this madness to continue? When will He stand up and say enough already?

mcplumbercuda on February 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

it’s just an article containing an awfully extreme and untenable position (IMO) from 2 doctors from Australia…it’s free speech, they have a right to express their ideas and the publisher to publish it, whether you like it or not and despite how outrageous it is to most people…and Julian Savulescu, the editor (or was he the publisher?), made a very good point in his article…what do you suggest? put a fatwa on the authors? besides, it’s Australia, what up with the outrageous outrage?…why do you care?…oh, yeah, I forgot…invade the antipodes before their subversive ideas spread…duuude…

jimver on February 28, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Show me where anyone is arguing here that these Australian doctors don’t have a right to free speech. Just one example. Apparently, your projection that we are somehow trying to unfairly silence a couple of Australian abortion ghouls bothers you a hell of a lot more than the ghoulishness does in the first place. And I have every right to call you a blithering moron in pointing that out.

gryphon202 on February 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Don’t even try to dice this, parse it or be “reasonable” about it! The only reasonable reaction to the outright killing of newborns is pure outrage!

If you can’t freaking get angry about people proposing to kill newborns then what the heck is there to get angry about?! The economy?
This is sick and these people are monsters!

JellyToast on February 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Basilsbest on February 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

I wasn’t a big baby person when Spawn was born and I’m still not.
I’m also STRONGLY anti-infanticide-both before and after the baby is born!!!
You were saying…

annoyinglittletwerp on February 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Excuse me?

I have never heard a more twisted, illogical and false term as “after-birth abortion”.

An abortion is to “abort” (halt, stop, prevent) a birth. Once a birth has commenced, it is impossible for an “abortion” to occur.

There is no such thing as an “after-birth abortion.”

Opposite Day on February 28, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Even though I will be attacked, and hated, as you people specialize in, that also serves my purpose of discrediting the character of those who believe in these radical beliefs and have these radical views of how the country should be run.
keep the change on February 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Did you hear that, conservatives? Your view that life is sacred and deserves protection is “radical.” Heh.

gryphon202 on February 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM

If you don’t want to have abortion, I will respect that choice.

keep the change on February 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Psssst dimwit . This is about killing people after they are born. Damn you are truly truly as stupid as they get.

CW on February 28, 2012 at 7:22 PM

From Dr. Tiller’s murderer:

I didn’t commit a crime! I was just engaging in a post-birth abortion! How can you say I was too late?

gryphon202 on February 28, 2012 at 7:24 PM

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

So now, making murder acceptable is an academic discussion. This is just great. Guess all the fuss about Hitler’s gas chambers should have been nothing more than an academic discussion while the jews were being exterminated. These fricking liberals are evil and dangerous. They should be taken out and shot. Hey, we can have an academic discussion about it. Don’t you libbies go and get all weed weed up about it. After all, we need to first discuss your being shot. Since we will be leading the discussion like the liberals on infanticide, I think we can go ahead and load the guns.

they lie on February 28, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Ah, a Romanian advocating genocide. I’ll tell you what, first off let’s kill all the people who can’t correctly understand a desirable situation from an undesireable. Kill all the crazy people. Then, kill all the people who aren’t crazy but who aren’t sane enough: kill all the people with mental disorders. Next, old people sometimes have difficulty making decisions and chosing “the right situation.” Better kill the old people, too. Especially, since they’re weak, they can’t really resist. It almost goes without saying that degenerates, homosexuals, and perverts who cannot “correctly chose” must be extirminated as well. Also, it seems obvious that those people at the lowest levels of society, the poor, the losers, transvestites, drug users, criminals, prostitutes, the hobos, the gypsies, the Romanians, scavengers, etc..their lives are, while they are not technically worthless, they are people who nobody would miss, so if they present a problem them may be eliminated as well.

In a rational world, it is the solution to so many problems! No more problems will arise because this solution is so complete. It is complete and final. The final solution!

Herald of Woe on February 28, 2012 at 7:24 PM

keep the change:

Thank you for graciously allowing me to not kill my child. Although I’m sure it pains you greatly to know that I already had 3, and plan to have more. Good thing I had those 3 miscarriages, right? I mean, can you imagine that carbon foot print?!

Anyway, it’s just great that you aren’t going to make me kill my kids. What a great country we have!

Vera on February 28, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Ideas have consequences that are known immediately and those that take time to rise to the top. This isn’t the end of this slope. The idea has yet to be taken to its logical (?) endpoint.

chemman on February 28, 2012 at 7:25 PM

keep the change on February 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

You got yourself all wound up and you didn’t even read the article. Seriously you are lost.

Either that or it is RADICAL Oh my oh so RADICAL to be against killing babies after they are born.

CW on February 28, 2012 at 7:26 PM

From Dr. Tiller’s Tiller the Killer’s murderer:

I didn’t commit a crime! I was just engaging in a post-birth abortion! How can you say I was too late?

gryphon202 on February 28, 2012 at 7:24 PM

FIFY.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 28, 2012 at 7:26 PM

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

Newsflash, you bonehead: We are NOT a “liberal society”.

Opposite Day on February 28, 2012 at 7:26 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. 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.

Absolutely insane monsters who have lost all their humanity! There is nothing left to these people! They actually seem shocked that people would be outraged at their proposals that babies aren’t persons and should and could be killed!

None if this is new. It’s been going on since the beginning of time in every Godless society there ever was. They are completely depraved!
Killing babies?! And they think it should be a discussion?! We should have a discussion about this? Like there are some reasons to explore here? A good side to this we all need to consider?

Freaking sick!

JellyToast on February 28, 2012 at 7:26 PM

An abortion is to “abort” (halt, stop, prevent) a birth. Once a birth has commenced, it is impossible for an “abortion” to occur.

There is no such thing as an “after-birth abortion.”

Opposite Day on February 28, 2012 at 7:20 PM

The problem as this article and others show, is that there isn’t as clear cut a dividing line between them as you might think.

sharrukin on February 28, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…

paul1149 on February 28, 2012 at 7:27 PM

You know who else aren’t really “people”? Guys who haven’t paid their debts to the mob.

Utilitarian calculus, baby!

Vera on February 28, 2012 at 7:27 PM

From Dr. Tiller’s Tiller the Killer’s murderer:

I didn’t commit a crime! I was just engaging in a post-birth abortion! How can you say I was too late?

gryphon202 on February 28, 2012 at 7:24 PM

FIFY.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 28, 2012 at 7:26 PM

I figured someone would. I just didn’t wanna be inflaaaaaaaaamatory. ;)

gryphon202 on February 28, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Anyone who does not instinctively want to clutch a newborn to their bosom is evil.

Basilsbest on February 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

It’s amazing how many people are actually trying to justify or defend this insanity.

Doomberg on February 28, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Just laying the groundwork for rationalizing offing dear old grandmaw and granddad when the become dependent.

ruthiedog on February 28, 2012 at 7:29 PM

“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.

Get that?

Her.

Can you be more politically correct? is it at all possible?

What TOOLS!

Opposite Day on February 28, 2012 at 7:30 PM

keep the change on February 28, 2012 at 7:12 PM

I am afraid I can really only feel pity for you. As broken as you are, it is hard to be angry.

NotCoach on February 28, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Nothing new under the sun. Rome allowed this in the 1st Century AD (CE for you politically correct types). A parent could toss their spawn in the dump up until they could fend for themselves and no one was allowed to rescue them.

chemman on February 28, 2012 at 7:31 PM

…article in which two ethicists advocated “after-birth abortion.”

Ethics and abortion? You’d be hard pressed to make that connection.

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

Missing a sarc tag I hope…

JetBoy on February 28, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Anyone who does not instinctively want to clutch a newborn to their bosom is evil.

Basilsbest on February 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

You’re an idiot. I don’t care for children and I’ve chosen not to conceive any. I certainly don’t feel an instinct to clutch a newborn to my chest. So I’m evil? There’s only two positions: those that want to clutch every newborn to their chest or those that want to commit infanticide?

sobincorporated on February 28, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Did you hear that, conservatives? Your view that life is sacred and deserves protection is “radical.” Heh.

gryphon202 on February 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM

I often stay awake late at night laughing manically over my crazy views on protecting life above all other liberties.

NotCoach on February 28, 2012 at 7:35 PM

So who gets to decide whether to “post birth abort” a child?

By their own logic, the mother no longer has any moral claim on the baby – it’s out of her body, and she has no claim on it. If it’s not a person, its just a thing, no more a person than a “spare embryo”.

The doctor? What moral claim does he/she have for any such decision? None.

So, if anyone can decide to “post birth abort” a baby, it truly is ANYONE. Anyone could walk into the delivery room and abort any baby they wanted to.

peski on February 28, 2012 at 7:36 PM

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 word “liberal” should have clued you in about the idiocy of this man (person?) or whatever he may be…..

chai on February 28, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Nothing new under the sun. Rome allowed this in the 1st Century AD (CE for you politically correct types). A parent could toss their spawn in the dump up until they could fend for themselves and no one was allowed to rescue them.

chemman on February 28, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Yes but it’s the year 2012 now, that was a long long time ago supposedly humans have developed – there is a reason they call it “Humanity”.

Dr Evil on February 28, 2012 at 7:37 PM

sobincorporated on February 28, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Crying babies are like nails on a chalkboard to me. Despite that, my only child will officially be an ‘adult’ in April and I’m about as rabidly anti-abortion as you can get. Someday I will probably have grandchildren and I will love them. I’d still rather snuggle a kitten than a baby.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 28, 2012 at 7:37 PM

opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

When did murder become a ‘value’??

locomotivebreath1901 on February 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM

I would guess around the same time a *right to life* was demoted to a *mistake*

JetBoy on February 28, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Nice article Tina, sorry about the other thread earlier. I like the picture of the baby you used for this article. Some of this article talks about the reason that I became pro life in all instances with the exception of in cases of defense. The left or right can never use the divide against my core value on life. Pro life in all instances, not involving defense, whether it be individual defense or National.

Bmore on February 28, 2012 at 7:39 PM

hehe, this a straw man. find some obscure publishing on the interwebs defending post birth baby killin and then:

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

SouthernGent on February 28, 2012 at 6:39 PM

None if this is new. It’s been going on since the beginning of time in every Godless society there ever was. They are completely depraved!
Killing babies?!

Freaking sick!

JellyToast on February 28, 2012 at 7:26 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

Liberals love killing innocent children. Rather it be via abortion,letting rapist and child murderers out of prison early, or 1000′s of other ways satan-I mean liberals-think up to kill innocent children.

mcplumbercuda on February 28, 2012 at 7:12 PM

I mean, you all taken the bait like the mindless fish you are. find real reasons to demonize your enemies. this is pathetic.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 7:39 PM

that we are somehow trying to unfairly silence the Australian abortion ghouls bothers you a hell of a lot more than the ghoulishness does in the first place. And I have every right to call you a blithering moron in pointing that out.

gryphon202 on February 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

I’m afraid the blithering moron (and shall I add illiterate) c’est toi, failing badly at reading comprehension is proof of it….what part of ‘they are two Australian doctors who hold a very, very extreme and untenable position’ you don’t understand? …oh, excuse for not having thrown a conniption fit and for not having mailed/emailed death threats to the doctors in question, to show my outrageous outrage, or for not having burned the JME publicly…

jimver on February 28, 2012 at 7:39 PM

We get it reprobate…good lord you are a mentally ill person.

tom daschle concerned on February 28, 2012 at 7:13 PM

I couldn’t listen to the whole thing.

But what I did hear sent me back 35 yrs to when I wrote a paper for an ethics class arguing the ‘Pro-Death’(as in mandatory) side of abortion. I was trying to make the point that the choice of death was absurd but my instructor seemed quite taken by my arguments.

Never expected to hear someone seriously arguing it.

OBQuiet on February 28, 2012 at 7:40 PM

A fetus was found recently in the sewage system in Baltimore, by the way. Stopped up a pipe. You can say a prayer for him or her, if you’d like.

And remember the names of the Nazis who wrote this article. Just remember their names.

Herald of Woe on February 28, 2012 at 7:41 PM

I think it is time we perform post natal abortions on these murderers. I suggest head shots.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on February 28, 2012 at 7:43 PM

More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.

I admire the honesty to state that the right to commit infanticide is a liberal value.

No doubt ObamaCare will include it and Catholics will be forced to pay for it, lest they appear as “fanatics”.

PackerBronco on February 28, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Again, not obscure. This has been advocated for years.

Vera on February 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM

jimver on February 28, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Not for us to forgive. BTW, why do pro-abortionists have such a hard time taking a clear stand? Neither you or nathor condemn this line of thinking, instead you both act defensively for no apparent reason.

NotCoach on February 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM

I mean, you all taken the bait like the mindless fish you are. find real reasons to demonize your enemies. this is pathetic.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 7:39 PM

nathor,nathor,nathor.

Bmore on February 28, 2012 at 7:45 PM

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.”

Julian Savulescu for defending Giubilini and Minerva is as reprehensible.

Being able to tell the difference between an undesirable and desirable situation is readily apparent in most newborns. When a newborn leaves the comfort of a warm moist womb and is thrust, if that’s the right word, into a cold dry delivery room, being held upside down and having its rear end swatted its reaction is frequently loud crying. That reaction would seem to be an expression of discerning the difference between a desirable situation and an undesirable situation. Crying as a response to hunger, or soiled diapers, even loud noises would also seem to be a manifestation of in response to an undesirable situation.

JohnFLob on February 28, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Anew twist on this?

Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings.
Heinrich Heine

marinetbryant on February 28, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Ok, it’s time for everyone to just calm down. You know, live and let live… oh, right.

the_moll on February 28, 2012 at 7:47 PM

I bet that right wing fanatic Santorum is going to try and take away a woman’s right to kill her baby. What a religious nut. s/

fight like a girl on February 28, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Nothing new under the sun. Rome allowed this in the 1st Century AD (CE for you politically correct types). A parent could toss their spawn in the dump up until they could fend for themselves and no one was allowed to rescue them.

chemman on February 28, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Sad but true. I do hope this is not meant to show your support of this though.

We have rejected many things that were common of old but barbaric. Wonder when some high minded ethicist with argue for bringing back slavery or wife-beating.

OBQuiet on February 28, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Pundette on February 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Huh?

chewmeister on February 28, 2012 at 7:52 PM

At the risk of The Hammer: reading this has finally convinced me that Western civilization has already passed the point of redemption. Our last hope – maybe – can only be in the form of radical Constitutionalism and/or radical Catholocism. I’m sure these people would hate to be on the bad end of a Stalinist purge; I’m equally sure they would appreciate the motivation.
I’m going to the range…

affenhauer on February 28, 2012 at 7:53 PM

marinetbryant on February 28, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Amen brother

Roy Rogers on February 28, 2012 at 7:53 PM

But since libtards are mostly takers, and would be clueless if left on their own……

There is an upside to this.

WryTrvllr on February 28, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Not for us to forgive. BTW, why do pro-abortionists have such a hard time taking a clear stand? Neither you or nathor condemn this line of thinking, instead you both act defensively for no apparent reason.

NotCoach on February 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM

what is there to defend? this is the 21 century, not sparta.
emotionless reasoning could lead to such deliriums, but, in the real world, these actions are revolting.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 7:57 PM

What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal.

Indeed. Ghoulish how the Journal of Medical Ethics publishes this atrocity. This reminds me, weren’t Jews considered mentally retarded and people who could be ethically dispensed with by the Nazis?

For genocide to happen, there must be certain preconditions. Foremost among them is a national culture that does not place a high value on human life. A totalitarian society, with its assumed superior ideology, is also a precondition for genocidal acts. In addition, members of the dominant society must perceive their potential victims as less than fully human: as “pagans,” “savages,” “uncouth barbarians,” “unbelievers,” “effete degenerates,” “ritual outlaws,” “racial inferiors,” “class antagonists,” “counterrevolutionaries,” and so on. In themselves, these conditions are not enough for the perpetrators to commit genocide. To do that—that is, to commit genocide—the perpetrators need a strong, centralized authority and bureaucratic organization as well as pathological individuals and criminals. Also required is a campaign of vilification and dehumanization of the victims by the perpetrators, who are usually new states or new regimes attempting to impose conformity to a new ideology and its model of society.

Herald of Woe on February 28, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Murderous barbarity.

Take a page out of the liberals playbook, sue their insurance company.

Speakup on February 28, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Incidentally, judging from their names, there don’t seem to be too many Jews on the editorial board at the Journal of Murderous Ethics. That’s just aside.

Herald of Woe on February 28, 2012 at 8:01 PM

The whole point of the article is to desensitize the act of infanticide. They are sending it up the flag pole, to see how many salute or pays attention. It gives them a read on the public’s opinion on what stages of a baby’s life, killing a baby is acceptable. This kind of behavior will be introduced fabian style over long periods of time till it’s not a shock, but an accepted practice. It isn’t a new idea, it is paganism- human sacrifice.

One thing the internet has exposed is the pagan death cult.

Dr Evil on February 28, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4