Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevent” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

They must be wrong this time.

Some academics no one has heard of have written a controversial paper to make a name for themselves, based on an idea one of them had.

a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

Linked? I’m linked to Oxford Univerity in so far as I’ve looked around some of the colleges when I visited Oxford last year.

I suspect that pro-life people will turn it around to say that this proves that abortion is no different to killing new born children and is thus murder.

abortion is no different to killing new born children and is thus murder.

Their argument already.

but ‘academics’ agree now 🙁

I reckon it should be anyone up to the age of 16.

Telegraph in “Shite article” SHOCKER!

I’d love to know who pays for these people to come up with this sort of thing.

That article reads like the results of an evening in the pub and a few beers …

different to

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

It’s different FROM not different to…. 🙄

Similar to, Different from. It isn’t difficult!!!!!! (althogh evidence suggests that it is) 🙄

the telegraph really shouldnt be allowed anywhere near science reporting

i hate to agree with him but prescot was right when he said the barclay brothers had turned it into the daily mail 2

The journal article is available here: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract – it is only three pages long.

A statement from the journal’s editor is here:

“Liberals Are Disgusting”: In Defence of the Publication of “After-Birth Abortion”
28 Feb, 12 | by BMJ Group

The Journal of Medical Ethics prepublished electronically an article by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”

This article has elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety. The Journal has received a string abusive emails for its decision to publish this article. This abuse is typically anonymous.

I am not sure about the legality of publishing abusive threatening anonymous correspondence, so I won’t repeat it here. But fortunately there is plenty on the web to choose from. Here are some responses:

“These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society.”

“Right now I think these two devils in human skin need to be delivered for immediate execution under their code of ‘after birth abortions’ they want to commit murder – that is all it is! MURDER!!!”

“I don‘t believe I’ve ever heard anything as vile as what these “people” are advocating. Truly, truly scary.”

“The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier”

(Comments from http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/#comments)

As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend its publication. The arguments presented, in fact, 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 in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.

The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.

Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. 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. 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.

Of course, many people will argue that on this basis abortion should be recriminalised. Those arguments can be well made and the Journal would publish a paper than made such a case coherently, originally and with application to issues of public or medical concern. The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument. Moreover, it supports freedom of ethical expression. The Journal welcomes reasoned coherent responses to After-Birth Abortion. Or indeed on any topic relevant to medical ethics.

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.

On the Blaze which reported it (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/#comments):

“Liberals are disgusting. They have criminal minds. To think that a person must be considered “worthy” to live is criminal.”

“It seems to me if good people are not going to stand up to do away with people who believe in doing away with live babies, then it means no one is good, and it’s just easier for God to drop a couple asteroids on earth.”

“i can’t even comment on this atrocity. I know these people are murderers in their hearts. And God will treat them as such. They are completely spiritually dead.”

“I have to say that I would personally kill anyone doing a after-birth abortion if I had the chance. Is that clear enough?”

The comments include openly racist remarks:

“Alberto Giubilini looks like a muslim so I have to agree with him that all muslims should have been aborted. If abortion fails, no life at birth – just like he wants.

“Journal of Medical Ethics” — hahaha! You libs and your quack science. Ya think that’s impressive, Albutt & Franpoop? No ****! I can beat you in my sleep. Here goes:

I take a ‘subject of a moral right to life’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to my own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to me.

Here’s the “projected moral status” you comunisti italiani pigs would get: Bang, bang. Drop in toxic waste dump reserved for left-wing contaminants.”

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.

Julian Savulescu, Editor, Journal of Medical Ethics

at 4am this morning the oven was pre-heated.. I had peeled and prepped a casserole dish full of veg and I was seriously considering the best herbs and spices to accompany my 5 day old baby..

Pro-lifers in publicity stunt.

the telegraph really shouldnt be allowed anywhere near science reporting

The people (for ‘people’ read ‘bullies’) who used to be in charge for the Daily Maul’s abysmal science reporting moved to the Telegraph a few years ago. Although you’d never guess

molgrips – Member
Pro-lifers in publicity stunt.

The academic paper, or the Telegraph article?