Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

>The Article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

>The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

>The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

>They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

>Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

People who oppose killing newborn babies are “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun
youtube.com/watch?v=th6Njr-qkq0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK IS WRONG WITH THEM?

It is not, and I have always been for it.

>2012

Why the fuck do you even bring this up, its idiotic

Man...this hurts my heart...fuck this place.

So basically exactly what everyone said will happen?

t. libcuck blandauppson

i agree. the state should also allow abortions of liberals up to the age 100.

whenever a liberal appears the government should abort them even if it's late into their life

Fuck you Jamal, I'm not part of your 200k a year salary "white intellectuals" that sit around all day getting paid to think about this degenerate shit. I bet they are not even Jewish this time

>Sentient being capable of limited but genuine behavior has no right to life
>Sentient being capable of receiving stimuli and responding to it has no right to life
>Sentient being capable of learning and developing has no right to life

The baby is a human being, although in one of the most simplest forms. Human beings have the right to life. Whoever advocates for killing of babies has absolutely no concept of fundamental morality or humanity. Lacking knowledge of such basic principles is a lack of the most basic socialization, and people who have failed to socialize that recklessly advocate for blatantly retarded shit like this should be ostracized/locked away.

you're not fooling anyone

The real debate is that when is it actually acceptable to get an abortion? Obviously life begins at conception but you're a fucking retard if you think that single mother- to-be should have a child in an already over populated, under resourced world, where said child will be born into a cycle of poverty. If you can't give a child a good life, then abortion is a very good option.

>>The Article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

W-Whaat.

Good article. Not killing babies is very anti liberal. Never though of it that way.

The real debate is if leftists are actually human or not.

Other than "muh feelz" there's nothing wrong with this.

Sounds like a modest proposal to me

I think that women and men should be much more careful about getting pregnant so they don't have to murder a child. I know that is alot to ask.

>(((((experts))))) say

OMG FUCKING MISOGYNIST you just want women to close their legs! fucking slut shamer!

>experts say

Then it has to be true

What is wrong with any crime other than muh feelz, in that case?

>should have a child in an already over populated, under resourced world, where said child will be born into a cycle of poverty
There is a simple solution to this problem comrade

>parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

I think I would be fine with that t b h

This makes absolutely no sense.

>killing people not different than abortion

Wew lads, I can see this slippery slope coming.

Its just a clump of cells, right? Just like how any organism is a clump of cells

But it's not idiotic. It's logically a perfectly justifiable position, but the pro-abortion libtards will start their autistic screeching immediately when reminded of the logical conclusion of their own beliefs.

Remember when they told us the slippery slope was bullshit?

> not supporting post-natal abortion

>all these faggots that are against eugenics

Put the fucking Bible down.

would it surprise you to know the person who wrote this was influenced by me?

When you can not halt the destroyers, you simply encourage them to destroy themselves.

gas the liberals and leftists now

they're too far gone

Your skin is the dividing line between your business and the government's business.

Is this a modest proposal or legit

I know it's old, but was this for real? It smacks of "A Modest Proposal" but given that someone somewhere honestly refuted it I'm not so sure...

>liberals are now for eugenics

see look, our claims that they were the real nazi's was right all along

Honestly sounds like a right wing amplify to absurdity tactic. Though you don't really need to amplify most left wing positions to absurdity.

I'm interested to see if I can get "punching pregnant women in the stomach and causing an abortion isn't murder" argument going in the legal system. After all if killing the fetus is legal, and we can legalize post birth abortions, then it stands to reason that (((refugees))) can go around punching potential nazis out of their evil white oppressing mothers with no legal action aside maybe assault.

Oldfag here.

My wife and I tried to start a family. Without going into too much detail, the fetus had a rare, completely random tri-chromosome mutation where even if she could carry the fetus to full term, it would die shortly after birth. So we terminated it.

I can see where some of you would have a problem with the argument of the doctor, but as someone who has lived this first hand and never thought it would happen to us, I can completely understand his argument. No one should be forced to raise a potato. Secondly, while chromosome tests, tissue tests and what not are getting better- they are not 100% conclusive so until the little thing is born and everything looks good, you really have no idea what the woman is incubating for 9 months.

now that i think about it, allowing islamic refugees to assault non muslim pregnant women and causing them to abort, legally, would be the best way to finally destroy cucked places like germany.

Then we could invade and just keep the land.

These guys have actually just done the pro-life cause a favour, by stating what we in the pro-life c camp already knew: that there is no moral difference between abortion (killing of an unborn childe) and the killing of a newborn baby.

Really makes you think.

Kek

the real debate should be how to create better condoms so that these women can stop using the "it broke" excuse on their lack of responsibility and willingness to abort for no reason other than "well i'm not ready but i'm ready to get fucked and came in lol"

>over populated
lol spotted the blue pilled faggot.

It is what it is man, you either agree with abortion and this shouldn't be an issue, or you realize you really aren't ok with the idea.

Our constitution doesn't grant rights to abort fetuses, but it does talk about the right to life. I personally don't have a problem with abortion, but I am surprised how many "womens rights" activists get flustered when you bring any of this up.

so if you knew it was going to die at birth why waste taxpayers money for an abortion?

cursory read points to it being a modest proposal

Notice its a white baby this article is under.

>practical ethics
moral relativism or just make shit up as you go along

Put the babies in an arena and make them abort each other.

Well, it's true. If you're a nihilist who thinks life is all about your personal satisfaction, they're right. Such an ideology will of course be weeded out by evolution, since you kind of need to make babies and so take care of other humans in order to endure. I personally don't care at this point. Western culture has gone to shitter and there's very little worth saving anymore. All we are anymore is a group of people shooting drugs, fucking and killing babies. Our culture has regressed and our lands have been taken, so we have nothing else than our history left. And even that is being rewritten.

>A zygote is not a real person
>And neither is a fetus
>And neither is a third-trimester fetus
>And neither is a recently born baby
>And neither is a child with a disability
>And neither is a child with mental illness
>And neither is an adult with mental disabilities
>And neither are racists, sexists, mysogynists, etc.

spartans did it, why can't we?

This

The question is not whether babies are people, they clearly arent as they fulfill none of the prerequisites, but whether human life is inherently valuable. If you support abortion you don believe it is.

They ofc cannot admit this because its a horrifying proposition which would lose them all support, but you know.

Is it too late to abort Hillary?

kek

Cool let's take this further
>postnatal abortions for fatherless children
>postnatal abortions for families on welfare
>postnatal abortions for children to parents who are convicted felons
>postnatal abortions for illegal immigrants
>all mandatory
>society cured in 30 years

Progress YES!

I am really getting use out of this quote today
> Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, increase in homosexual behavior, inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and females, aggressive behavior of females, passivity of non-dominant males with increased attacks on each other which were not defended against.[2] After day 600, the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed "the beautiful ones." Breeding never resumed and behavior patterns were permanently changed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun

I'm alright with abortion, but this is way too far. As soon as its born (and maybe a month or two before its born) it has the right to life.

At least if liberals push for this then it'll be easier for us to push for pic related

We should abort THEM.

Don't worry, it's not murder. They don't have a "right to life."

How is this any different from a Spartan leaving a downs baby on a hillside in the woods?

The argument could be made for eugenics to be a mark of a more nuanced society, not a regressively (a)moral one.

This can more easily be done by mandatory sterilizing the right target of people.

>If you support abortion you don believe it is.
Not necessarily. Their argument is that the fully developed potential mother's life/choice is more valuable than the unborn child's. So it's not that it has zero value, just less than a sentient being's free choice, especially when it may threaten their own life. I admit it's not so clear cut.

>published in Journal
It's difficult to come up with original ideas when it comes to philosophy or ethics. The quickest route to fame in this game is to come up with a ridiculous and untenable perspective so you can stake your philosophical claim. In turn, you are more likely to get published and cited. The flipside of this is that this guy will have to spend the rest of his life defending this point and will be forced to present it to his students, some of which will eat this shit up.

Also, pic related, look at this psychopath.

The fetus was making my wife physically ill to the point where she could barely take care of herself.

Don't you have some refugees to go pay for?

Also if the justification is that they won't contribute something meaningful to existence, then the next logical step is to review criminals and weight if those existence has created a new loss to society. If it has kill them. Or anyone who is draining society, like welfare queens.

They're right. It is no different. That's why I'm against all abortion. Abortion is murder.

Why argue about philosophical garbage when the real issue is people just not reproducing and the birth rate plummeting. Deal with this problem first, then come to me with abortion

>I can kill fetuses because muh body muh decision
>Nothing magical happens to the brain of a baby the day it leaves the uterus
>I can kill babies too
This is what happens when you follow them down the rabbit hole.

because abortions are safer and less taxing on the mother?

medfag here
in the medical world:
life of mother >>>>> life of baby
the whole 'i'll sacrifice myself, save my baby' shtick only can happen without a doctor/ nurse nearby

I agree with him. Disabled babies shoud be extreminate, so we don't have more libtard.

Until we kill a few billion brown people, yes, the world is fucking overpopped.

>> Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, increase in homosexual behavior, inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and females, aggressive behavior of females, passivity of non-dominant males with increased attacks on each other which were not defended against.[2] After day 600, the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed "the beautiful ones." Breeding never resumed and behavior patterns were permanently changed.
It seems we're not lambs after all. We're mice. I take care of myself and use a lot of energy on self improvement. I wonder if alien observers would dub me a beautiful one.

Ah, giving up so soon? You're so weak, like a little baby. The fun has hardly even begun, stupid fool.
Doing nothing now is merely the key to transitioning into the future we are running headfirst toward.

We are going to die if we do nothing.

You hear me?

Your decision to do nothing is dooming your future in particular, and by extension, the rest of your nation, and even further by extension, the biodiversity of the white race. You are a self indulgent whore of a person who probably is better off dead anyway considering just how much you only care about yourself anyway;

none the less, there is still time. France may be 30% black right now, but in ten years, it'll be 90%, and every other nation in europe will be forever destroyed because of the constant flow of niggers filling in the country like an ever expanding tide of self expanding insulation, filling in the cracks until finally there is nothing left but darkness

Why won't you do something to stop it, when you still can? our ancestors will damn us forever on from here for doing nothing to stop it.
In any case,

good luck.

Any time I cite the rat utopian experiments in a sociological context, the first and thereafter only replies I get are always "HUMANS AIN'T RATS, YOU AUTIST," and you shall be no different!

I mean, c'mon, man, Humans are not rats, right? That's like, stupid. You're being a real autistic SJW, right now. Don't do it again.

Being the Devil's advocate in a discussion about medical ethics. The authors don't advocate infanticide. They just analyze the ethics around the issue of abortion. But of course it's a taboo subject that makes some pro-life folks react emotionally (without understanding it's merely a philosophical discussion, not a proposal) and causes cognitive dissonance in pro-abortionists.

youtube.com/watch?v=th6Njr-qkq0

Kek

>Francesca ((Minerva))

Holy shit.

Yes, that's entirely correct. I still wouldn't push it as a policy, but personally I don't consider it a person with any interests or rights until it starts developing a basic personality. Until then it's as moral to euthanise it as it is to put down a dog.

No, it has no INHERENT value

That argument would allow abortion in the vase of medical necessity. You cannot legitimately suggest that believing in abortion maintains that human life has inherent value, but that inherent value just happens to be less than the convenience of the mother. You cant conflate 'choice' (read: convenience) and just conflate it with life. Thats absurd. That be like saying your right to life is not more important than my property(a legitimate truth)/irritation to justify why its ok for me to shoot you out of annoyance in addition to as a response to theft.

they simply want to legilze satanic sacrifces

You guys are idiots. The whole argument is that a baby is not a person until its about a year in a half. It is not conscious or aware of its existence. I agree with them that abortion should be legal until the 12th trimester.

We should have a vote to decide if killing someone who is already born in the name of abortion is abortion.

Then we abort all those people who would allow it.

Wtf I'm B.J Blawzkovich now

>A photo of the article's author can be seen to the left, depicting his TED talk on eugenics/post-birth abortion at Stanford university

But if you tell a liberal you had an abortion because that fetus had a crippling permanent disability they would call you Hitler.

And so it happens, like clockwork, the beginning of the end.

In early times, people had an abortion in this way. They gave birth to the child, baptized him, and after he was buried. So he could go to heaven.

this

i enjoy how you framed it. normally i press for arguments proving how conflation of convenience is morally abhorrent. but this is much better, it accepts that they truly believe there is no inherent value because if there was, they would be doing the greatest "genocide" in the history of humanity. Over 100 million. More than MAO and STALIN combined.

Spartans also liked to be butfucked why can't we?

>The Nazis were wrong for reasoning out that Jews were not humans and that it was okay to kill them! Muh Shoah!
>Reasoning out that a baby is not a human, and that it is okay to kill your own, is progress!

>That be like saying your right to life is not more important than my property(a legitimate truth)/irritation to justify why its ok for me to shoot you out of annoyance in addition to as a response to theft.
Just because you disagree doesn't mean the argument CAN'T be made.

I can assign a value of 1 to human life. But a sentient human's ability to make a choice might have value 2 to me. Hence the mother's choice is more inherently valuable than a fetus, but the fetus has inherent value, greater than that of a pile of rocks, say.

And society IS structured to value your right to property higher than my life/freedom. If I break into your house and start grabbing things, then my freedom, or in some cases my life, may be sacrificed to preserve that.

Not every moral dilemma boils down to life vs no life.

My sides

100% unironically agree.

fuck retard christians

>said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article.

Hopefully it won't just be threats for long. These fuckers deserve to be slaughtered.

Ask them if they support this

if no, why

If yes, why they dont support euthanizing grown disabled people

Their ethical ideology is horrific an they should be forced to confront that fact as often as possible

I don't understand why someone who believes certain races are basically subhuman and need to leave or be eradicated would be so protective of the value of human life.
Seems to me if you let it enter the zeitgeist that humans aren't really humans until they have an acceptable moral code you could rationalise genocide in modern times.

...