Alberto Giubilini

When Do We Get To Euthanize The Medical Ethicists Who Say Murdering Newborn Babies Is Good For Society?

by

See also:

– ‘Ethicists’: “… ‘AFTER-BIRTH ABORTION’ (Killing A Newborn) Should Be Permissible In All The Cases Where Abortion Is, Including Cases Where The Newborn Is Not Disabled” (Journal of Medical Ethics):

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

– When do we get to euthanize the medical ethicists who say murdering newborn babies is good for society? (Natural News, March 02, 2012):

In an article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, scientists argue that killing newborn babies is ethically no different than abortion and should therefore be openly allowed in society. The paper says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and that they do not have “a moral right to life.” (See sources, below.)

The authors of the article are mainstream medicine ethicists named Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. One is a former Oxford scholar. In their paper, they argue “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.”

Several death threats have been leveled against the scientists, although it’s hard to actually call them “death” threats since scientists who recognize no sense of life in newborn babies can’t possibly be living themselves, right? At best, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are mindless zombies, so whacking off their heads with a chainsaw would seemingly be no more meaningful than turning off the switch to a hollow sack of skin that contains no soul.

I’m being sarcastic, of course, by using their own mad reasoning against them. They call the murder of infants nothing more than “after-birth abortion” and declare that “it should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is.”

Can we still abort these scientists? Or is it too late for that?

Finally out in the open: The mass murder / eugenics agenda of abortion pushers

Read moreWhen Do We Get To Euthanize The Medical Ethicists Who Say Murdering Newborn Babies Is Good For Society?

‘Ethicists’: “… ‘AFTER-BIRTH ABORTION’ (Killing A Newborn) Should Be Permissible In All The Cases Where Abortion Is, Including Cases Where The Newborn Is Not Disabled”

by

In other news:

– Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions‘ as Newborns ’Are Not Persons’ (The Blaze, Feb. 27, 2012):

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

– Paper: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? (Journal of Medical Ethics):

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Authors:

  1. Alberto Giubilini 1,2,
  2. Francesca Minerva 3,4

Author Affiliations

  1. 1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
  2. 2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  4. 4Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK

More info on the authors:

Read more‘Ethicists’: “… ‘AFTER-BIRTH ABORTION’ (Killing A Newborn) Should Be Permissible In All The Cases Where Abortion Is, Including Cases Where The Newborn Is Not Disabled”