Shocking article considers whether babies have 'moral right to life'. WARNING: distressing content

[chandellina]

following on last week's abortion thread, anyone care to jump in on this one?

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.

Telegraph story

pity those midwives werent done for murder. How dare they make that decision.

Sevenfold, who are you addressing?

Morally, it is no different. I would have thought that legally its different because as was pointed out on the last thread, a person is a person once they have taken an indepeandant breath.

I don't see why this thread should upset anyone more than the last abortion thread. Everyone will be upset by something, we cant censor everything that might upset someone somewhere. I sometimes find myself upset about perfectly reasonable threads because of my own personal reasons or circumstances, that's why I'm very pleased that MN towers gave us a hide function.

given that discussions by 'academics' has led to eugenics in the past, it is disturbing when 'academics' publish bilge like this.

What? Sevenfold, I'm not the OP, nor have I posted any "anti disabled stuff".

sevenfold - I am not condoning the findings of the ethicists. The Telegraph obviously thought this was newsworthy. Hide the thread if you don't want to see it.

People are free to believe what they wish although if anyone would really actively advocate death for disabled babies I respectfully request they do not enter my life in any way. Not that we knew my boys were disabled unril they were 3+, but I have some wonderful (and commercially successful in some cases) friends and friend's children who were born with severe disability.

As for 'In the wild it's called culling. And most animals do it to their young.' well, I've struggled for years to define why humans rank higher than animals for so many people- just found a reason!

This isn;t a proper Ethcs board; I did a module in ethics for my degree (Religion and Philosophy), proper ethics discussions take place in a safe spaces and not on the 'In The News' section of parenting websites.

As for morality like hell is it clear cut; abortions take place for reasons that vary but one is medical risk to mother so that clearly does not apply, and the vast majority of terminations happen before the baby is viable. That is hugely relevant.

BabyDubsEverywhere Wed 29-Feb-12 16:51:23
I can understand the logic, it's not that shocking, or that big a step tbh. But then I would fully support abortion up until term and assisted death...

ye[ some people are sick

What a disturbing line of argument from supposed ethical experts .

Quite, Sydney: I have doubts whether this research would flag up on my Athens system for example!

However it's a debate etc etc but should be in a more sensitive area so like others would like to see it moved.

Hmmm, see Im very pro-choice and I can see why they say its no different if the crux of the debate centres around when someone becomes a 'person'. But to me once a baby is capable of surviving outside of the womb then it becomes a person in its own right rather than essentially a parasite (please dont think I think of them in that way - I just mean a parasite in the sense that the foetus / baby needs the mother, the host if you like, to survive). So I guess Im not really pro-choice then?

It is quite thought provoking, and on the note of the thread itself if anyone is distressed by this or discussion around abortion then there is a hide function.

Also, as a side, I havent seen Graham, or anyone else has post any 'anti disabled stuff' at all. Not even anything that could be mis-read as anti-disabled.

You can tell me to fuck off if I am rude to you or make some form of attack upon you, sure, but having a different opinion and expressing it in a reasoned and perfectly legitimate manner does not give you the right to tell me to fuck off, Sevenfold.

Also the title of the thread is pretty clear what its about

Sevenfold due to my mental health disorder and the medication i have to take to control it the end of my life will be very unplesant. I would like the right to choose for my life to be ended when the deteriation begins. By this point i will need assistance. So I fully support assisted death, for my own reasons, and my own experience. It is an opinion and just as valid as anyone else's thank-you very much.

Abortion to term, well that was argued far more eloqently than I will manage on the last abortion thread, i agree with the majority of the reasonings, freedom for women etc. please search if you require more in terms of reasoning for that.

As I said i dont see it a step much further if women would be entitiled to abort to term for X reason that if that reason was suddenly only apparent at birth that the 'abortion' could be allowed then. I didnt say it was something i could consider for myself, but following on from abortion to term it seems an arguable request in some circumstances.

As already stated though its all academic. And there is really no need for the vitrol.

I am assuming that "having a different opinion" means you are agreeing with report then? Nice!

Have asked for this thread to be moved into the ethics section - am hiding it now.

this is something that is so vile it deserves anger.
if you don't like it report me.
I don't care, I find people discussing murdering new born babies sick.

I support assisted death for those who choose it as adults; I have seen many people die from horrid diseases in my nursing days and have no wish to go that way.

However, this article talks about babies and a baby cannot make that choice for themself. Some of the people on this thread have babies for whom switching off life support at birth was suggested and something they ahd to fight against; a swing in the law to make it more acceptable and therefore easier to argue against would have deprived them of children they love very much.

Babydubs surely you can comprehend that is not random vitriol; it is experience led fear at what could have been their own reality.

Sevenfold, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you supporting abortion to term on the other thread?

Sorry if I am remembering wrong,that happens a lot!

Thing is, I think this particular debate is a bit spurious as it is so very unlikely that a baby will be born with severe disabilities that are a) obvious at the moment of birth and b) not obvious beforehand. I'm aware that sometimes birth trauma can cause severe brain damage but that wouldn't necessarily be instantly clear.
So if (for instance) a woman was carrying a foetus that was massively encephalic, had Harlequin syndrome or some other problem that would mean its life post birth would be very short and possibly very painful, she would most likely be aware of this before the child was born and able to opt to terminate the pregnancy.

no I made the point that there should not be discrimination before birth, so if you can terminate up to birth for disability it should be the same for non disabled babies.

If the title of the thread making it clear is enough, then is it OK to post a therad that MH disorders are all made up in the MH section? That Autism does not exist in the SN section? That termination is wrong in the pregancy choices section?

Nope, not at all. Compassion is IMPORTANT.

• I have deliberately chosen disorders that affect me and mine, just so that people know I am not actually suggesting those things myself.

You can assume what you like, Codandchops. I made my view clear in my first post, I'm not going to repeat it just for the benefit of those who didn't comprehend it.