Friday, March 02, 2012

"Ethics Experts" Defend Infanticide: "It's Just Like Abortion."

Well, yes it is.

And, in a sane and moral world, that means both acts of violence are unjust, inhumane and totally unacceptable.

But we live in the brave new world where words mean next to nothing, where hedonism makes its inevitable turn into nihilism, and where God is brazenly defied at every turn.

Here's the latest example as told by Stephen Adams in the Telegraph... 

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

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 Orwellian irony in the professor's desire to take the high ground in this controversy is as sharp and sinister as...well, as an abortionist's knife.)

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’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded 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”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing…

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”...

Oh, my. Once again we see glaring evidence that the egotistic, evil and mad as a hatter scientists who make such effective villains in pulp fiction are very much with us in real life.

And if they are not stopped -- and stopped soon -- it is the twilight of civilization indeed.