[The Telegraph, February 29] 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”.*
Read the rest.The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
*I am going to go on record right now and say that if this represents the "very values of a liberal society", then I am absolutely and fanatically opposed to the values of a liberal society. I'm glad the authors of this "study in ethics" managed to nail me so accurately. They have just slid another hundred meters down the slippery slope. A good illustration of taking something to its logical conclusion, except that they haven't finished yet. On the other hand, it's nice to see that they think that killing newborns is no different from abortions. The obvious flip-side to that is abortions are no different from killing newborns.
"The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." --Flannery O'Connor