Infanticide

OzzyKP · February 13, 2004, 22:59

http://www.worthynews.com/zone.cgi?http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36763

Quote:

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
UK medical ethicist:
Infanticide 'justifiable'
Government adviser suggests acceptable to kill babies with 'defects' soon after birth

Posted: January 25, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

It's OK to kill babies after they are born if they turn out to have "defects," says one of the British government's leading advisers on genetics.

Provoking an uproar, Professor John Harris, a member of the British Medical Association's ethics committee and author of 15 books on the ethics of genetics, made the statement endorsing de facto infanticide during a recent debate over sex-selection, reports the London Telegraph.

Asked what moral status he accorded an embryo, Harris responded by endorsing infanticide in cases where a child has a genetic disorder that remained undetected during pregnancy and suggested there's no moral difference between aborting an unborn baby and killing an infant once it's born, said the report.

''It's not plausible to think that there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal," he told the Telegraph.

Harris declined to say up until what age he believed infanticide should be permissible and later stood by his remarks, which he claimed had been elicited ''in response to goading'' from pro-life campaigners.

''People who think there is a difference between infanticide and late abortion have to ask the question: What has happened to the fetus in the time it takes to pass down the birth canal and into the world which changes its moral status? I don't think anything has happened in that time," he said, according to the paper.

''It is well-known that where a serious abnormality is not picked up – when you get a very seriously handicapped or indeed a very premature newborn which suffers brain damage – that what effectively happens is that steps are taken not to sustain it on life-support.

''There is a very widespread and accepted practice of infanticide in most countries. We ought to be much more upfront about the ethics of all of this and ask ourselves the serious question: What do we really think is different between newborns and late fetuses?

''There is no obvious reason why one should think differently, from an ethical point of view, about a fetus when it's outside the womb rather than when it's inside the womb.''

According to the Telegraph, Julia Millington, political director of the ProLife Party, called the admission ''absolutely horrifying,'' and added: ''Infanticide is murder and is against the law. It is frightening to think that university students are being educated by somebody who endorses the killing of newborn babies and equally worrying to discover that such a person is also a member of the ethics committee of the British Medical Association.''

If this was already posted and discussed, I apologize.

All us lifers knew this would be the horrible next step. In Rome killing children was legal up to the age of 9. Maybe that'll be in our future if something isn't done to stop this legalized mass murder.

Verto · February 13, 2004, 23:01

Truly an outrage; will it soon become acceptable to euthanize those over 70, since they are merely draining society of needed resources?

OzzyKP · February 13, 2004, 23:04

And the mentally ill. And those that carry genetic disease. And those with unpure traits. And those of "lesser ethnic groups".

Spiffor · February 13, 2004, 23:05

This is extremely disturbing

OzzyKP · February 13, 2004, 23:08

But I do agree with some of this guy.

Quote:

''People who think there is a difference between infanticide and late abortion have to ask the question: What has happened to the fetus in the time it takes to pass down the birth canal and into the world which changes its moral status? I don't think anything has happened in that time," he said, according to the paper.

He is right, there isn't a moral difference. Which is why abortion is as wrong as infanticide.

Spiffor · February 13, 2004, 23:10

Please do not confuse late abortion with abortion at all. When you destroy a young embryo, it's not like you destroy an organism capable of thinking and feeling.

The Emperor Fabulous · February 13, 2004, 23:10

Are you kidding me? It's nothing of the like. If you're going to go ahead and have the baby, ****ing have it. Don't kill it after the fact.

joncha · February 13, 2004, 23:18

Hmmm.... where's BK? I thought he'd be all over this thread by now. Maybe's he's too busy watching the hockey game.

jon.

Elok · February 13, 2004, 23:21

Dunno about Ben, but speaking for myself I don't think there's much else for a pro-lifer to say. It's only one wacko from the UK, but what he says is indeed a logical extension of pro-choice rhetoric.

joncha · February 13, 2004, 23:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Elok
Dunno about Ben, but speaking for myself I don't think there's much else for a pro-lifer to say. It's only one wacko from the UK, but what he says is indeed a logical extension of pro-choice rhetoric.

Only in the same way that "every sperm is sacred" is the logical extension of anti-choice rhetoric.

jon.

Ben Kenobi · February 13, 2004, 23:27

Quote:

I thought he'd be all over this thread by now.

What more can I contribute to what has already been said.

Kudos to Ozzy for posting and to all the other lifers.

Spiffor · February 13, 2004, 23:28

Jon

Ben Kenobi · February 13, 2004, 23:30

Quote:

Please do not confuse late abortion with abortion at all. When you destroy a young embryo,

So please define the difference. At what age is the child young, and at what age is she old?

OzzyKP · February 13, 2004, 23:30

Quote:

Only in the same way that "every sperm is sacred" is the logical extension of anti-choice rhetoric.

jon.

No, that is the illogical extension. Just as the illogical extension for anti-life rhetoric is support for abortion/murder for people of all ages.

Spiffor · February 13, 2004, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by OzzyKP
No, that is the illogical extension. Just as the illogical extension for anti-life rhetoric is support for abortion/murder for people of all ages.

It is actually not illogical. Utterly dumb and extremistic and loathable, I agree, but not illogical.

OzzyKP · February 13, 2004, 23:37

Well by whatever name you call it, its in the same area as "every sperm is sacred".

Spiffor · February 13, 2004, 23:38

Dumb, extremistic, and loathable. I think we have found an agreement here

joncha · February 13, 2004, 23:42

Go back to the original post, Ozzy. I was comparing his "logical" extension of the pro-choice argument to my "logical" extension of the anti-choice argument.

jon.

Urban Ranger · February 13, 2004, 23:42

Looks at the source of the news.

Space05us · February 13, 2004, 23:42

While Im all for abortion if the mother and father want it I dont see any logic behind killing an already born child. Even if they are ****ed for life there are ways of taking care of them and people who are willing to even if the parents dont want to.

Ben Kenobi · February 13, 2004, 23:43

Quote:

What has happened to the fetus in the time it takes to pass down the birth canal and into the world which changes its moral status?

Well jon, what has changed?

joncha · February 13, 2004, 23:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Well jon, what has changed?

I think Emperor Fabulous already answered that:

Quote:

Are you kidding me? It's nothing of the like. If you're going to go ahead and have the baby, ****ing have it. Don't kill it after the fact.

Ben Kenobi · February 14, 2004, 00:05

So nothing changes.

Glad we could come to agreement.

joncha · February 14, 2004, 00:17

Note the term "baby." A foetus is not a baby. Just as a woman is not an incubator.

jon.

Ben Kenobi · February 14, 2004, 00:20

Quote:

A foetus is not a baby

Why not? The child is her offspring, regardless of age.

Sava · February 14, 2004, 00:22

geez... and liberals get branded as "bleeding hearts"... it's a cruel world people... yes, we have technology and such now, but civil societies have practiced infanticide for thousands of years... I think infanticide is wrong. But it's not the OMFG OMFG evil that people complain about.

And this does not in any way equate with late-term abortion. There's a line between when a baby is a baby and when it is a fetus: when it comes out of the mother. As long as it's in the mother, it's her decision to have the pregnancy or not.

To address the point "how did the baby change from the birth canal to the state being born"... good question. It didn't. But that's the line that is drawn. In the mother = fetus, outside the mother = infant/baby/etc. But this point is moot. The number of abortions done in the 9th month is SOOOOOOO INSIGNIFICANT, I could probably count the cases on my ****ing hand. But the right wants to go on and on about some dopey emotional argument... they want to start the slippery slope so they can effectively take control over a woman's right to her body. We should not give one ****ing inch to these authoritarian chauvinists that wish to usurp a woman's control over her own body.

Verto · February 14, 2004, 00:24

Quote:

But it's not the OMFG OMFG evil that people complain about.

Since your opinion is overwhelmingly more superior and eminent.

Sava · February 14, 2004, 00:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
Since your opinion is overwhelmingly more superior and eminent.

it's not about my opinion on the legitimacy of a human's right to live... I don't want abortions to occur any more than any other moral person, but the WRONG WAY to go about reducing the number of abortions is exactly the path all the nazi pro-life ****ers want to take.

It's a shame all these ****ing hypocritical conservatives CRY about the BIG BAD government when the government wants to tax the rich to provide health care (a human right). OOOOHHH THE BIG BAD GOVERNEMNT IS GOING TO FORCE ME TO BE COMPASSIONATE OMFGOFMGOMFG...

but the second there's a chance to CONTROL women... conservatives flip-flop and say... OMFGOMFGOMFOGM ABORTION IS EVIL WE MUST TAKE CONTROL OVER THEIR BODIES!!!!

first it's abortion... then it's sex in general... soon people will be arrested if they have sex out of wedlock... ITS ****ING MEDIEVAL, and as long as there is a breath in my body I will oppose (with force if necessary) the move of ANYONE to USURP anyone's rights.

MRT144 · February 14, 2004, 00:33

ozzy, you displaying the logical fallacy of "either one or the other"

Verto · February 14, 2004, 00:34

Aren't we talking about killing newborns because of 'defects'?