Wednesday, August 09, 2017

It's okay to kill children if you don't want them

Francesca Minerva. Not sure I would have kept her.
This article in the Journal of Medical Ethics is apparently on the level. From the abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
Do you need to pause and read that again? If not, here's a bit from the introduction:
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.
This article was written by two Australians: Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. Alberto is with the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, Canberra. Francesca is with the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne.

You can congratulate these monsters here: Alberto.Giubilini@monash.edu or
francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au.

The Journal of Medical Ethics is co-owned by the Institute of Medical Ethics and BMJ Journals. You can express your pleasure to BMJ Journals here: support@bmj.com. And to the Institute here: contact@instituteofmedicalethics.org. They would love to hear from you.

This article was published about five years ago, but I'm just now discovering it. Here is the authors' non-apology apology for this trash. They're essentially blaming me and people like me for the ruckus that followed publication. Here's the deal: I'm not smart enough to understand what they are saying.

No comments:

Post a Comment