After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

A "Potential" Person With
No Moral Right To Life

Human beings never seem to stop degenerating.  Just when we've hit what we think is an old time low, we go even further into evil.  One would think that the legal killing of babies in the womb is about the lowest we can go.  Ah no, now the Journal of Medical Ethics is aruging to allow the killing of newborn babies.  Satan continues to demand human sacrifice, and we continue to obey his commands.  I would like to post the actual paper here, but it costs $30 to view it for one day, and it is also copyrighted.  So I have posted an article from infowars.com regarding this. 

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us. 

Ethicists Argue Killing Newborn Babies Should Be Allowed

Shocking reminder that eugenicist beliefs underpin medical establishment


Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, February 28, 2012

A paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible, even if the baby is perfectly healthy, in a shocking example of how the medical establishment is still dominated by a eugenicist mindset.

The paper is authored by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

“The fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant,” the authors claim, arguing that adoption is not a reasonable counter-argument because the parents of the baby might be economically or psychologically burdened the process and the mother may “suffer psychological distress”. How the mother could not also “suffer psychological distress” by having her newborn baby killed is not explained.

“Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal,” the authors write.

The practice of infanticide has its origins in barbaric eras of ancient history, but it is still common is many areas of the world today, including China where the one child policy allied with the social pressure to have boys has resulted in a massive imbalance in the population. Studies have found that 40 million girls are ‘missing’ in China as a result of gender-selective abortion and infanticide. In India, there are 50 million less females for the same reasons.

In Pakistan, over 1000 babies a year are the victims of infanticide, which is rarely punished.

Matthew Archbold of the National Catholic Register explains how the legalization of infanticide, killing newborn babies, is the logical conclusion of the starting point of the argument, which is that the fetus is not human and has no right to live.

“The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand,” he writes.

Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals.

“Or to put it another way, too often bioethics, isn’t. On the other hand, to be fair, the ancient Romans exposed inconvenient infants on hills. These authors may want to take us back to those crass values, but I assume they would urge a quicker death,” he writes.

Alexanderhiggins.com also has a very good post on this subject, taking from different sources. 

A paper just published in the Journal of Medical Ethics says that parents should have the right to kill their newborn infants, because infants are not people.

A paper in the The Journal of Medical Ethics, an international peer-reviewed journal for health professionals and researchers in medical ethics, argues that murdering newborn infants should be legalized.

The rational? “Infants are not people”.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

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.

By Alberto Giubilini¹, ²and Francesca Minerva³,⁴Author Affiliations

1. Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
2. Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3. Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4. Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK

Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; mailto:francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au
Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.
Source: Journal of Medical Ethics

Justifying the Murder of Infants

The authors of the study, Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne argue that they “prefer the term “after-birth abortion” as opposed to “infanticide,” as the latter conjures up images of a child rather than a “fetus,” which does not have the moral equivalent to life than a baby. [As William Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name . . .] The After-birth abortion would be justified in cases where, “the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk.” They say, “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.’ ”

To easier swallow the idea that a child is a “fetus,” those that support killing a child are skilled with their use of language to easier digest the idea of abortion. Clearly the authors of this study have the same idea with regard to verbiage. Recently, Joy Behar had a minor slip up in the accepted verbiage, while referring to a pending law in Virginia that would require a mother to get an ultrasound before committing to an abortion. Ms. Behar said that forcing a mother to “see the child, er, infant, er fetus, er ‘whatever it is’ before getting an abortion is downright evil!”  [Killing the "child, er, infant, er fetus er ‘whatever it is’" is not evil, but looking at it before you kill it is evil.]
[...]
Source: Gather News

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions‘ as Newborns ’Are Not Persons’

[...]
The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] 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.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

[...]

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:

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.  [Remember Candidate Obama's statement that stating when life begins was above his paygrade?  Well, I guess it's above everyone's "paygrade."  If we are allowed to progress far enough, the definition of a "person" will be anyone who can contribute to society and is not a burden on anyone else.  If we are unable to be "productive" members of society, and others must take care of us, then we will have no right to live.]

[...]

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. [See above.]  Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life [and who is it who makes the decision of "right to life"? The US Constitution said right to life is God given, but I guess that doesn't apply anymore]: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.  [An "embryo", a "fetus" and now a newborn baby are put on the same level as those who have committed heinous crimes.  A very telling comparison from those who view babies as nuisances and easily killed if they dare to interfere with our lives.]

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.  [Giving a child up for adoption can cause "psychological distress" because the mother might still "dream their child will return to them" but killing the child won't cause any stress whatsoever, according to the authors of this paper.]
[...]

Source:The Blaze

If there is any doubt about the existence of evil in this world, this should remove that doubt completely.  The only sanity to be found is with God and his true one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.  Even with the Church, we must wade through it and constantly test the spirits, because evil has also infiltrated there, as I have shown many times on this blog.  You are either serving God or serving the devil.

Satan Resting on the Mountain
Surveying Humanity Doing His Bidding