Medical-ethics journal proposes acceptance of infanticide
February 28, 2012
The Journal of Medical Ethics has published an article calling for acceptance of “after-birth abortion”—the destruction of unwanted children after they are born.
The article--written by two ethicists with university affiliations in Australia, Italy, and England—argues that since abortion is now accepted, infanticide should also be allowed, since “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons.” The authors recognize babies—born or unborn—as “potential persons,” but find that status “morally irrelevant.”
For all current news, visit our News home page.
Further information:
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: garedawg -
Feb. 29, 2012 10:25 AM ET USA
I notice from her website that Dr. Minerva is a lowly "research associate". I also am in academia, and I believe the rule is that a fetus is a fetus until it attains tenure.
-
Posted by: garedawg -
Feb. 29, 2012 10:18 AM ET USA
If one's humanity is determined by one's usefulness to society, then university-based medical ethicists have much to fear from retroactive abortions.
-
Posted by: unum -
Feb. 29, 2012 8:27 AM ET USA
Clearly, medical ethics is too important to be left to the medical profession. This is the best argument I have seen yet for the presence of religion in the public square, and should be an urgent call for all active Catholics (as opposed to CINO's - Catholics In Name Only) to back the Church's stand against the government denials of our First Amendment freedom of religion.
-
Posted by: -
Feb. 29, 2012 7:51 AM ET USA
Wish we had some info on Francesca and Alberto. Bet they're glad their parents didn't do to them what they advocate for others.
-
Posted by: AnthonyP -
Feb. 28, 2012 11:56 PM ET USA
Please read the article. Here is a concerning quote: “Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but ther well-being of the family is at risk.” This should come as no surprise to no one. Anyone who supports abortion should also support infanticide, tho these authors choose not to call it that. Location is the only difference...inside or outside the womb, newly conceived, fetus, newborn...they are all human, that is the bottom line.
-
Posted by: TheJournalist64 -
Feb. 28, 2012 8:05 PM ET USA
Wait a minute, from the Journal of Medical What? Rationalization?
-
Posted by: wolfdavef3415 -
Feb. 28, 2012 7:46 PM ET USA
Here is the core of the line of reasoning from the full-text: "Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life."
-
Posted by: wolfdavef3415 -
Feb. 28, 2012 7:37 PM ET USA
2 Timothy 4:3
-
Posted by: bkmajer3729 -
Feb. 28, 2012 6:13 PM ET USA
How long 'O' Lord? Did anyone actually think this would not come out - look what's happening. And where will it end... Next 1 year olds, and then 5, and then it will just be someone else judging if you live or if you die. Have we really forgotten? I mean really, have we forgotten? Was His life in vain? Were their lives in vain? Does the crucifix no longer matter? This is truly insanity.
