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

There is a bit of a misunderstanding here:

if foetuses are not persons and therefore we can kill them at will
and infants are similar to foetuses so also not persons and therefore we can kill them at will... this applies to ALL foetuses and ALL infants.

There is absolutely no distinction here to suggest that foetuses/infants with disabilities are a special case, so that it is more or less permissible to kill them. If the argument is valid it is permissible to kill all infants for whatever reason the parents come up with, e.g. I would like to go on holiday, newborn is a drag to take with me, therefore I will kill her.

This argument doesn't have any special relevance to disabled infants (although I still haven't gotten around to reading the paper in question, just going by the general argument, which as Kitsilano mentions above, is covered ad nauseum (if you are the poor examiner of these bloody things) by almost every UG philosophy student in the country (because it is the natural extension of the arguments in Peter Singer's "Practical Ethics", a very popular textbook).

But Peter Singer is not just an abstract philosopher making philosophical arguments as far as I can see. He is also political. He is or was a green, an environmentalist, and I feel that his philosophical views are not divorced from his political views.

True, he does campaign for animal rights and the environment BUT he does not campaign for infanticide. Just because he campaigns on behalf of some of his views does not mean that he has to campaign on behalf of some possible extensions of others of his views!

Other contemporary philosophers who have taken an active life in public policy include:
Baroness Warnock who was instrumental in developing the abortion law, the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act and rights to education such as the idea that all children have a right to education as a means of developing their individual abilities.

Bernard Williams who was instrumental in the decriminalization of homosexuality and prostitution.

Bertrand Russell who campaigned against the Vietnam war, for nuclear disarmament and for the rights of the individual.

Not to mention the countless philosophers who help out with the HFEA (e.g. Ruth Chadwick), the Nuffield Foundation (e.g. Stephen Wilkinson) and other policy making and advisory bodies.

'Other contemporary philosophers who have taken an active life in public policy include'

But don't you think that some of them have a political agenda and that their philosophical views support their political agenda. Do you think that they dream up what they call their "ethics" in a vacuum? What underlies their philosophical views?

They often call their work "ethics" and some call themselves "progressive", but what underlies their views?

What underlies their views and where might their views lead? I think they know where.

I should hope that reason underlies their views otherwise they do not have much claim to the title 'philosopher'.

Ethics or morality is a branch of philosophy which deals with questions of moral right and wrong. Like all areas of philosophy you will find all sorts of views represented here including conservative views that often coincide with the views of the political right (see for example the work of Brenda Almond). Philosopher or ethicist doesn't in any sense equate with progressive or liberal, nor is the support of infanticide considered philosophically progressive,

'Philosopher or ethicist doesn't in any sense equate with progressive or liberal'

That is certainly true. But it is strange that quite often "philosophers" who hold these views have progressive political views, just like Peter Singer's progresive green environmental views. They talk about "morals", but I bet they ignore religion in their "practical ethics". They probably think that religion is too impractical for them. What is moral about killing helpless children?

Yes Ican I am having a riot.

I mean Iam obviously. Doh.

Booboostoo - thanks for the intelligent analyisis. Was composing a supportive and detailed post but am too tired from trying to climb out of Platos cave. And fear it may be wasted anyway...please can I leave you to it?

The trouble with the glurge about babies that were expected not to live long after birth but which have in fact gone on to live and thrive or at least have reasonable lives is that they are the exceptions; many babies born with severe disabilities do die pretty quickly. Sometimes they suffer a lot while they are alive. It is a murky ethical area (how comfortable are you really with the idea of a child born with its internal organs outside its body, which can only be saved by operation after operation and even then it might well die within weeks...) which is what makes it worth debating.

Still here, well after 7,20. I guess my faith in MNHQ was well-placed :)

It's all about termination of pregnancy.why is it acceptable to kill a foetus and not a newborn?

'If only people could see it for what it is. Theoretical, intellectual reasoning - valid, possibly interesting but of course utterly unoriginal'

I think most of us can see it for what it is, which is why we disapprove of it.
We don't need to study "ethics" under professors in universities to understand what is moral and ethical.

solidgoldbrass, the article is about all babies, including healthy ones.

This is really about respect for life, all life, and trying to save all life and make life better for all people. It is about not being the moral arbiter of life and death, not being so immoral as to play at God.

I don't believe in abortion but murdering a newborn is completely different to having an abortion

I haven't read the Telegraph article, but the link to the article about The Netherlands is interesting.

I think if my child was born with a condition that meant constant, agonizing pain I would want euthanasia for them as I would for myself.

I don't think you should be able to 'abort' a baby after birth though and I don't know where you would draw the line or how you would decide.

I'm strongly pro-choice, but think the cut off should be when the fetus is able to sustain life outside of the mother. I don't agree with 'to term' abortions.

I find it very hard to be black and white on this issue.

Hiya Trills - I lose

Is it just me, or is this thread utterly bizarre? I feel like I'm Alice falling down the rabbit hole...

Oh, but many thanks for your really helpful posts, Booboostoo

Craig - I don't see how you can disapprove of exploring and attempting to understand the moral issues that society wrestles with.

I think that one of the points that some posters may possibly be missing is that the whole argument only holds IF you support abortion to start with. It's only in that case that you can question at what point then, does the act of terminating another human being stop being acceptable - and why.

If you are anti abortion from the start then naturally any discussion like this is horrifying. If you support abortion in principle you should at least stop and ask yourself WHY it feels wrong to kill a newborn, yet acceptable to kill a foetus. Don't just reject the whole discussion.

And it has nothing at all to do with NT babies vs babies born with disabilities of any kind. The principle being explored applies universally.

Claig not Craig - my apologies

What makes me uneasy is when stupid people want to shut down discussion of a subject because it's 'UPTHETTING!' Discussing and exploring a subject doesn't mean you are going to take any particular course of action, it just means you're discussing and exploring the subject. Shutting down debate is more likely to lead to eugenics than having the debate, because it's the societies where the masses are both thick and have been induced to be sentimental that tend towards accepting great cruelty as it's For Their Own Good, and thinking about stuff is a bit nasty, boohoo, what about feelings those are so much more important.

'It is right to see Singer within the traditions of ethical universalism and Utilitarianism, the doctrine founded by Jeremy Bentham which argues on secular, humanist grounds in the interests of the greatest happiness for the greatest number - a calculation which may need off-setting by sacrifices from others.'

www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/feb/15/peter-singer-profile

I think it is immoral because it ignores the weakest in society, those who are in most need. Utilitarianism sees people as numbers not as humans who deserve respect and love.

"greatest happiness for the greatest number" is the rule of the majority and does not defend minorities.

' it's the societies where the masses are both thick and have been induced to be sentimental that tend towards accepting great cruelty'

the masses have no say and no power. It is the "experts" who decide and implement these type of policies. That is why ordinary people must always be vigilant about what the "experts" are thinking.

'secular, humanist grounds in interests of the greatest happiness for the greatest number - a calculation which may need off-setting by sacrifices from others.'

The people who will make the 'sacrifices' under this type of thinking are theweakest, the poorest and the sckest. That is why it is immoral.