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

Sevenfold's point AFAIR is that current termination law is actively disablist and that equity should be present in the legislation.

I find people discussing murdering new born babies sick Me too.

Killing disabled babies at birth is not the same as a TOP at

Oh, fair enough. Sorry!

it should be deleted.
it does not warrant debate,
killing babies is murder.
what is to debate

Surely the article is just pro life propaganda, well that's how I read it anyway.

Sancti i wasnt trying to lead the discussion to something else or compare to assisted death, i was explaining my thoughts behind the three things i mentioned in my first post as I had been 'called' on it. I only bought up abortion to term as my reasoning for not seeing it as such a huge step, as in, if that were allowed then the next step would be 'abortion after term'. Not that I would choose it again as I have already said, more that I can understand the logic from that point of view.

This thread is going wild.

I'll bet five shillings it will be deleted by 7.20pm.

I found the article earlier when I came in, and came onto MN in order to post a thread about it, only to discover this one was already the second Most Active. To me, it crystallises the whole problem of abortion.

FTR im pro choice.

I don't see how it is any different to abortion to term. The only difference is that the baby has been through the birthing process, the development of the baby is the same.

I bet if the title said 'killing 'name your race' it would be gone pronto. But babies, and the acdemcs were discussing those ones who had slipped through the screening as if babies werent peple. Then thats an ok topic?
'Abortion after term' is murder.

Devora I hope it is 6.20

The Telegraph is wrong to call them "experts" as if what they say must be right.

It is perfectly sensible for people who study and research and think about ethics to think about whether a newborn is sentient, about what makes it wrong to kill something, and what is the difference between some thing and some one.

Peter Singer, the Ethics Proff best known for his Animal Rights book advocated killing disabled babies up to a month after birth. Yet animals were to be given full rights.

so do the posters who think killing babies is worth debating want to debate killing non disabled babies.

I studied Philosophy at University and wrote an essay on this subject (a long time ago). It is an intellectual exercise these academics are undertaking - they extrapolate certain principles that people may believe in - regarding the acceptability of abortion for example and what it means to be a person. And then look at the logical conclusion of holding those beliefs. If you deny that being born actually changes you into a person (because you are still so "dependent") then where is the line before which abortion is OK and after which it is not?

They are not actually saying that Downs syndrome children or others "ought" to be killed at birth. They are just exploring our system of moral beliefs - and personally I think it is worthwhile and interesting for society to do this.

The Telegraph is just trying to make a shocking news story out of an academic argument that has been around for ages.

Sevenfold, I think you are seriously misinterpreting the views on this thread. What I was saying - and others too, I think - is that ethics debates often focus on a wild proposition in order to test out logic, applicability, sustainability etc. So you will find debates on, for example, if it's ok to kill a cow for its meat, why is it not ok to kill your mother? It's not meant to be treated as a serious proposal, it's a wacky proposition for the purposes of testing the powers of reasoned argument.

I'm not a philosopher and I kind of run out of explanation right there, but I think that may be what's going on. For me, the real question is why the Telegraph saw fit to publish this as a 'story' - lazy and shoddy journalism, I think.

I honestly can't see anyone on this thread who thinks killing babies is a good idea.

There you go, Kitsilano explained it far better than me.

thanks Devora

but you can't hide disablist attitudes.
hiding a thread does not make a thread ok,
this is supposed to be a parenting site, how can debating murdering babies have a place on here?

It is disgusting.

But abortion to term for abnormalities is allowed (questionably IMO)..... 40 wks..... what if a baby is only 36 wks gestation, but born?

Such a horrible idea.

Have to hide this thread Down's daughter is reading over my shoulder. What an evil world we live in!

Why was it ok to discuss murdering babies when they are still inside their mothers on the other thread but it's not ok to discuss it if they have been born? It's the same thing. There were plenty of people on the other thread advocating abortion to term.