Australian paper says Euthanizing Babies should be allowed

A paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible, even if the baby is perfectly healthy, in a shocking example of how the medical establishment is still dominated by a vicious mindset.

The paper is authored by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

The complete article can be found here:http://www.eutimes.net/2012/03/australian-paper-says-euthanizing-babies-should-be-allowed-as-abortion/

About these ads

2 thoughts on “Australian paper says Euthanizing Babies should be allowed

  1. I haven’t had a chance yet to read the article, but my understanding is that the authors are philosophers, not medical practitioners; so, it’s not clear that the article is evidence of anything about the medical establishment. Moreover, the question of to whom we ascribe personhood is a perfectly legitimate philosophical question. I don’t think there’s anything irresponsible, much less vicious, about asking the question and then elaborating whatever well-considered answer emerges. Notice, however, that personhood can only be one part of the story. Questions about infanticide (and abortion) don’t just hang on who’s a person, but also (IMHO) on other factors, such as the principles of harm reduction. What do I mean by this? Well, even though he didn’t think that non-human animals are persons, Kant argued that we ought not to torture them because, for various reasons, doing so makes us worse people. Torturing animals causes harm, whether they’re persons or not. One could easily run an analogous argument about infants.

    In any event, as I say, I haven’t read the article yet. But, prima facie, I don’t think there’s anything in principle objectionable about it.

  2. Call it whatever, but killing remains murder however it is put into words and there is nothing ethical about that.

    Some immediately react to the revelation that “healthy” babies are being included in the equation of who is considered acceptable to end life. However, this builds further discriminatory argument: Why does it seem to be more acceptable to kill a baby with an extra or missing chromosome? The value of a life does not hinge upon perfect genetics; no one is “perfect.” Each of us harbour genes that may result in less than desirable condition, including non-visible disease processes such as Cancer. It is no more acceptable to kill a human with a predisposition for far-sightedness than in having 47 chromosomes. My child, Samantha Martin, who was born with a rare genetic condition, accomplished more for advancing humanity in her short life than others considered neurotypical may in an entire aged life.

    Velvet Martin,
    SAMANTHA’S LAW

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s