After-Birth Abortion - Journal of Medical Ethics

Quote:

---

Abortion paper led to death threats.
TWO Melbourne academics have received death threats after writing a theoretical paper that argues killing a newborn baby should be allowed in cases where an abortion would have been granted.

The controversial paper, written by Alberto Giubilini, of the University of Milan and Monash University, and Francesca Minerva, of the University of Melbourne and Oxford University, was electronically pre-published in the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics last week and titled ''After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?''

The philosophers suggest that newborns and foetuses are morally equivalent ''potential persons'' whose family's interests override theirs.

Avoiding the term ''infanticide'', the pair say ''after-birth abortion'' should be permitted when disabilities, such as Down syndrome, are not detected during pregnancy, or if economic or psychological circumstances change and ''taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone''.

Dr Minerva said she had notified police about the death threats and feared for her safety.

''This was a theoretical and academic article,'' she said.

''I didn't mean to change any laws. I'm not in favour of infanticide. I'm just using logical arguments.''

The paper had been taken out of context, she said. It was intended for an academic community.

''This debate is not new. The debate has been going on for 30 years,'' she said. ''I don't think people outside bioethics should learn anything from this paper. I've received hundreds of emails saying, 'You should die'.''

The British Medical Journal Group, which publishes the Journal of Medical Ethics, has defended publication of the article. Journal editor Julian Savulescu said fanatics were threatening academic discussion and freedom of speech.

---

Full story @ the Age

Hiding their murderous desires behind academic discourse. Typical socialists.

Really, the two "academics" should be happy. The people who threatened to kill them were just trying to offer him the same chance that the academics were offering the new born babies: To be murdered after exiting the womb. They never specified a min or max legth of time, so I would assume they mean that they can just murder anyone who was born at some point, right?

As someone who is pro-choice (I think the baby should have a choice), I feel like this "unmasks" abortion for what it truly is.

It almost seems like they're being sarcastic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirgonzo420

As someone who is pro-choice (I think the baby should have a choice), I feel like this "unmasks" abortion for what it truly is.

It almost seems like they're being sarcastic...

---

Quote:

---

Although it is reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is against the best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down's syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’.3 But, in fact, people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.5

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

---

Doesn't sound like they're being sarcastic to me.

And the parts in red are to be read in the context that they are talking about the comfort/well-being/convenience of the parents, not the baby. What they are saying if you go read the entire section, is that an acceptable reason for post-birth infanticide is merely the fact that the mother or father might be stressed out about having a child with downs or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awoke

Doesn't sound like they're being sarcastic to me.

And the parts in red are to be read in the context that they are talking about the comfort/well-being/convenience of the parents, not the baby. What they are saying if you go read the entire section, is that an acceptable reason for post-birth infanticide is merely the fact that the mother or father might be stressed out about having a child with downs or whatever.

---

Oh I'm sure they're being serious, but all they are doing is projecting the "logic" of abortion closer to it's ultimate end.

Abortion is just a euphemism for murder. This article practically screams this fact.

It would wake up some fence sitters if this got wide coverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnQPublic

Welcome to the slippery slope. It all started when they changed the Hyppocratic oath to the Hypocritic oath.

---

Under Obamacare in the new Idiocracy, doctors will be taking the hippopotamus oath.

"We promise to like chikin mignuggits. We will tell fat peeps they is fat."

this is just one of their ways to population control . what are we doing in ever country around the world