After-Birth Abortion The pro-choice case for infanticide.

[Revmitchell]

Just when you thought the religious right couldn’t get any crazier, with its personhood amendments and its attacks on contraception, here comes the academic left with an even crazier idea: after-birth abortion.

No, I didn’t make this up. “Partial-birth abortion” is a term invented by pro-lifers. But “after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:

[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.

Predictably, the article has sparked outrage. Last week, Reps. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., and Chris Smith, R-N.J., denounced it on the House floor. But it isn’t pro-lifers who should worry about the Giubilini-Minerva proposal. It’s pro-choicers. The case for “after-birth abortion” draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us, implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t.


http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

 

[church mouse guy]

And euthanasia.

 

[annsni]

It is actually the very logical next step when you believe the child is not a human being unless the mother wants it.

 

[PreachTony]

This is not exactly a new school of thought for the left. DeCamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton, Dr. Peter Singer, has claimed that babies are not considered persons until after a minimum of 30 days post-birth. In 1979, Singer wrote the following:

Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons; therefore, the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.

In 1972, a philosopher named Michael Tooley wrote:

[A human beings] possess[es] a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity. Infants do not qualify.

American University Professor of Philosophy, Jeffrey Reiman, wrote:

[Unlike mature human beings, infants do not] possess in their own right a property that makes it wrong to kill them...(infants are not persons with a right to life and)...there will be permissible exceptions to the rule against killing infants that will not apply to the rule against killing adults and children.

Basically, any step they can take to reduce, by definition, the standing of an infant in terms of personhood...

 

[just-want-peace]

Does anybody remember the cries of the moral element of this country many decades ago about the "SLIPPERY SLOPE" argument; and the retorts of the bloodthirsty left about the overblown and harsh rhetoric of this idea???

What is sown shall be reaped!!!

Same concept re: queers getting married, and we see how that is progressing! :BangHead::tear: