Newborns now called “Potential Persons” as we head toward infanticide acceptance

Un-Be-Lievable. Yesterday we learned that taking the logic of abortion to its ultimate consequence, two “ethicists” have argued that “killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.”

Alberto Giubilin, a philosopher from the University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, an ethicist from the University of Melbourne, have made the case that since both the unborn baby and the newborn do not have the moral status of actual persons and are consequently morally irrelevant,  what they call “after-birth abortion” should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is perfectly healthy.

The article titled, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” appeared online in the Journal Of Medical Ethics last Thursday. And now the editor of that article says, hey, no problemo–they’re already doing that in the Netherlands. Below I’ve curated the stunning statements via Lifesite News.

But first, in case you’ve forgotten the chilling and gruesome exchange of words that have been struck from the congressional record as if they never even happened, here is Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wis, stating in his own words that –just in case a baby is accidentally delivered whole in a partial birth abortion procedure–killing that newborn should be a decision between a doctor and the mother:

And now, on to more of the same sickening rhetoric:

Journal editor defends pro-infanticide piece: Killing newborns is already legal in Holland

(via – The editor of an ethics journal that recently published an article advocating infanticide (what the authors call “post-birth abortion”), has responded to widespread criticism by pointing out that promoting the killing of newborns is nothing new: in fact, in the Netherlands infant euthanasia is already legal and practiced.

Editor Julian Savulescu also criticizes what he calls the “hate speech” directed at the authors of the article, arguing that the public’s response to the piece shows that “proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

In the journal article Alberto Giubilin, a philosopher from the University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, an ethicist from the University of Melbourne, made the case that “after-birth abortion” should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is perfectly healthy. They base their argument on the premise that the unborn baby and the newborn do not have the moral status of actual persons and are consequently “morally irrelevant.”

In response to the backlash, Savulescu wrote that the arguments in the article “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.”

He also observes that the paper “draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.”

The fact that The Netherlands already permits the killing of disabled newborns is not widely known, even by many in the pro-life movement. The practice is permitted under the so-called Groningen Protocol, which outlines the circumstances under which a physician may deliver a lethal injection to a newborn who suffers from a disability, at the request of the child’s parents.

An article published in 2008 in the prestigious Hastings Center Report about the Protocol similarly provoked outrage after the authors argued that disabled babies might be “better off dead.”

The authors of that article also linked infanticide to legalized abortion, arguing that infanticide may in fact be the morally superior alternative to abortion.

“The supposedly morally superior alternative [of abortion]…does not strike us as superior at all,” they wrote. Instead, they said, parents of a child with a poor prenatal diagnosis should wait until the child is born, when they can make a more informed decision about the chance that their child has of living a “satisfactory” life.

“We join disability activists who condemn the routine recommendation of abortions performed for no other reason than to prevent the birth of an affected baby,” they said.

In his response today, editor Savulescu observed that the authors of the recent paper simply took for granted the premises that undergird legal abortion, and followed them to their logical conclusion.

“The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view,” he writes. “It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.

“The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn,” he continues. “Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject.”

The pro-infanticide article and the defense from Savulescu come only months after a Canadian judge employed similar arguments in the process of handing out a lenient sentence to a mother who strangled her newborn and threw him over a fence.

According to Justice Joanne Veit, Canada’s lack of an abortion law indicated that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.”

“Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother,” she added.

Savluescu, the director of the Center for Practical Ethics at Oxford University, has made the news in the past for arguing that the requirement for organ donors to be dead at the time of organ harvesting should be removed, and that “mandatory” organ donation should be instituted. He has also argued that humanity has a “moral obligation” to use in vitro fertilization (IVF) to select the most intelligent embryos for the good of society.

This entry was posted in Berean Examiner Blog, In the News and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Newborns now called “Potential Persons” as we head toward infanticide acceptance

  1. Rose Vosburgh says:

    I read down through that article by the Journal of Medical Ethics…it is absolutely chilling! The part where it denigrates adoption as an alternative to abortion or ‘after-birth abortion’ is despicable. They say that the mother might go into depression if she gives her child up for adoption. So killing it is less traumatic for her, huh? What a sad world we are living in when little babies aren’t even considered real humans. This is where our a godless world is headed…when you can kill one member of society legally, it devalues all human life. The next group to be considered sub-human will be the elderly…after all they are a drain on society with all their health issues…right? Their families and society should not have to be burdened with them… Scary world. We are moving right back into the same mindset as when Hitler came to power. Only this time it will be a one world ruler, the Anti-christ and he will be so evil he will make Hitler look like a saint.

    As I write this, we are awaiting the delivery of my daughter's baby which could be any day now. She is pregnant out of wedlock and is giving her baby up for adoption to a couple (distant relatives) who are unable to have children of their own. Yes, she will be sad for a while, but she knows her child will have a loving two parent home. She has made a mature, selfless, loving choice which is so rare these days. I am so proud of her.


  2. Mr. Jamie Lee Rake says:

    Thought you might be interested in the letter I just sent ex-Senator Feingold after hearing about the vid' Amy posted above, which I sent to him vis his current PAC, or whatever it is, Progressives United. Here 'tis…

    H'lo Russ,

    Listening to one of my favorite radio shows this morning (, I'd heard about the video footage that forms the basis for this clip,

    ! ,which you had expunged from the Congressional record.

    So, former senator o' mine, did you have that video expunged because you no longer agree with the position you held when interviewed there by your former colleague Mr. Santorum? Or did you no longer wish to be associated with such a stark articulation of a view you still hold but don't want to be very well known for espousing?

    It wasn't that long ago during your final senatorial term that you hosted a town hall meeting in my city (and I give you credit for holding those;it's more than your fellow Badger State senator was doing at the time, though in interviews he seemed to have phantom memories of having done so!). I recall you having gotten awfully irritated at a question by a lady who may not have been your equal in articulation and poise but sounded to have genuine concern and a broken heart for the ongoing slaughter of the unborn brought on by the Constitutionally faulty adjudication of Row-versus-Wade. Your agitated dismissal of her saddened me me about as much as it appeared to have angered you to have to address the topic of abortion, especially as it relates to Obama(Rationing Of)Care. Did you conscience ever gnaw at you while addressing such queries from your constituents who questioned your support for for what progressives are wont to call a woman's reproductive right but which really snuffs the most basic of rights-life from girls and boys who won't grow up to be women an men with rights of their own? I don't wish you ill, but I do hope you'll come to a realization of the blood on your hand's and the nation's overall for standing as you have in regards to the unborn.

    So, if the video I linked above marks a step away from what you believe now regarding children who survive abortion, I congratulate you on making moral philosophical progress (heh heh);you'd seem to no longer have that in common with the currently abortophilic president you've so staunchly supported . If, however, you went so far as to expunge the public record of video wherein you espoused so heartless a position as you state therein, I can only hope your influence on politics in Wisconsin and the U.S, as a whole diminishes proportionally to the extent you'd support the "right" of an aborted baby to be left to die.

    Most Sincerely, Your Former Constituent,

    Mr. Jamie Lee Rake


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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