Mums Should Be Able to 'Abort' Newborns (Says Aus Academic)

Abortion outrage: Mums should be allowed to terminate newborns, say Australian academics



Monash University's Alberto Giubilini and the University of Melbourne's Francesca Minerva argue that a newborn is only a "potential person". Picture: Supplied

KILLING newborn babies should be allowed if the mother wishes, Australian philosophers have argued in a prestigious journal.

Their argument, that it is morally the same as abortion, has forced the British Medical Journal to defend its publication of their views.

In an article that has sparked outrage around the world and elicited death threats, Monash University's Alberto Giubilini and the University of Melbourne's Francesca Minerva say that a foetus and a newborn both lack a sense of life and aspiration.

They argue this justifies "after-birth abortion" on the proviso it is painless as the baby is not missing out on a life it cannot contemplate.

The doctors of philosophy argue in the BMJ publication Journal of Medical Ethics that one-third of infants with Down syndrome are not diagnosed in the womb, which means mothers of children with severe disabilities should have the chance to end a child's life after, as well as before, birth.

However, the pair also want the principle of killing newborns extended to healthy babies, because a mother who is unwilling to care for it outweighs an infant's right to life.

In the article, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, the authors argue: "A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human."

They also write that the practice should be called "after-birth abortion" and not "infanticide" to "emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a foetus (on which 'abortions' in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child".

"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."

Although the authors claim that the "moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a 'person' in a morally relevant sense", they concede it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a "person".

The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, said the article had "elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety". He said some of comments included:

"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."

"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!!!"

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

“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."


He defended the article, saying the arguments in the paper were not new. "The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide ... 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."

He said that "more than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society".

News.com.au
 

Nuke

Paragon
Re: Mums Should Be Able to 'Abort' Newborns (Says Aus Academ

This is actually rather old news. Killing newborns is the same thing as killing an unborn child. Evil.

I propose that we put those that abort their children through the same process that they used to kill their children, plus some other things.

1. Rip apart limb from limb.
2. Burn alive.
3. Throw away, act like they were never alive.
 

Watch Me Sink

Madly Diligent
Dec 31, 2007
6,352
0
171
East of Canada
FP$
79
Re: Mums Should Be Able to 'Abort' Newborns (Says Aus Academ

I'm quite sure that these people are anti-abortion and doing this to make a point. If not, that's ridiculous.
 

Gimgak

Madly Diligent
May 17, 2009
6,825
8
173
FP$
-0
Re: Mums Should Be Able to 'Abort' Newborns (Says Aus Academ

Watch Me Sink said:
I'm quite sure that these people are anti-abortion and doing this to make a point. If not, that's ridiculous.
That's what I said or that they're looking for attention, FP staff however decided to delete it :roll:.
 

Princess MeowsePad

Chocolate Foot Princess
Re: Mums Should Be Able to 'Abort' Newborns (Says Aus Academ

Watch Me Sink said:
I'm quite sure that these people are anti-abortion and doing this to make a point. If not, that's ridiculous.
What this guy said.

I don't think I've ever met a person who likes abortion, but I personally don't feel that it's right to allow the state to govern a woman's body. I also feel that abortion is the least of the evils when the alternatives are unfit parents (who don't even want the child) or a broken adoption system (that probably can never be fixed completely).
 

Nuke

Paragon
Re: Mums Should Be Able to 'Abort' Newborns (Says Aus Academ

I remember one time, a guy that said he went through the adoption system (although I don't know the details of if he got adopted or anything) and he appreciated the fact that he was allowed to live. It was on a deceased forum, though.

Also, I met a complete left wing nut that believed that abortion was vital and we need to abort more and stuff in the same topic. He was also a Socialist, Militant Atheist, and so on.

But off of memory lane, post-birth abortion should never happen, but this is a real thing. It's not just pro-life advocates doing it to make a point...
 

Princess MeowsePad

Chocolate Foot Princess
Re: Mums Should Be Able to 'Abort' Newborns (Says Aus Academ

Nuke said:
I remember one time, a guy that said he went through the adoption system (although I don't know the details of if he got adopted or anything) and he appreciated the fact that he was allowed to live. It was on a deceased forum, though.
I'm happy that it worked for him, but for every person who is "saved" by the adoption system, many more suffer because of it.

Nuke said:
Also, I met a complete left wing nut that believed that abortion was vital and we need to abort more and stuff in the same topic. He was also a Socialist, Militant Atheist, and so on.
That doesn't automatically mean that all socialists, atheists, and left-wingers are violent in that way. I'm all three, and I wouldn't advocate violence against anyone, including people who disagree with me.
 

Nuke

Paragon
Re: Mums Should Be Able to 'Abort' Newborns (Says Aus Academ

Snobothehobo said:
Nuke said:
I remember one time, a guy that said he went through the adoption system (although I don't know the details of if he got adopted or anything) and he appreciated the fact that he was allowed to live. It was on a deceased forum, though.
I'm happy that it worked for him, but for every person who is "saved" by the adoption system, many more suffer because of it.

Nuke said:
Also, I met a complete left wing nut that believed that abortion was vital and we need to abort more and stuff in the same topic. He was also a Socialist, Militant Atheist, and so on.
That doesn't automatically mean that all socialists, atheists, and left-wingers are violent in that way. I'm all three, and I wouldn't advocate violence against anyone, including people who disagree with me.
Sorry if you thought I was saying they're all like that. But you can't deny that they EXIST.

You'd think left-wing racists wouldn't exist, but they do. It doesn't mean all left-wingers are racist. Now, not all of you are nuts either. He was, though.

Oh, and also, I think I'd prefer living a bad life over being aborted.