Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

[mad cow]

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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.

More at link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

[shane77m]

Sounds like a good argument to me. I say we extend the age up until the child is of 18 years old. Might help cut down on teenage stupidity.

[supermario21]

If anyone has taken a bioethics class, this stuff isn't surprising. Some say that the child really doesn't become a person till around age 7.

[AuH20]

At least they are being honest.

[kcchiefs6465]

Sigh.

[Ranger29860]

I do like the professors reasoning for letting this get published in the journal. But obviously the article and premise itself I have issues (MAJOR) with.

[jkr]

physician kill thyself

[Christian Liberty]

If anyone has taken a bioethics class, this stuff isn't surprising. Some say that the child really doesn't become a person till around age 7.

Ugh... They're only talking so they aren't actually guilty of anything.... but I really hate people that say crap like this. (Not you, those professors.)

Honestly, this is why I frankly don't care when people say that I'm "Enforcing my morality on other people" when I suggest banning abortion (Occasionally, although not as often, I'll get someone who says enforcement of property rights is a form of morality enforcement.) Libertarianism doesn't even claim to be opposed to enforcement of morality, and thank goodness. I would never be a libertarian if that were the case. Libertarianism says your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. It says that you can do what you want so long as you do not use violence against another person or their property. Killing the unborrn, or the newly born, does, and those who do it should face death, to Hell with "Not enforcing morality."

This thread just shows why pro-choice = crap...

[Ranger29860]

This thread just shows why pro-choice = crap...

No this thread just show's why extremes = crap. I can come off just as crazy as these two on any issue if I take it to the same extreme.

Non interventionism? We need to build a plastic bubble around us!..

pro life? we need to have people watching the mother 24/7 after conception to make sure she does noting to harm the fetus!

Gay marriage? We need to let pigs marry humans!

Against gay marriage? We need to put gay people in jail!

All your doing here is appealing to the extremes.

[heavenlyboy34]

The same logic used in the story can be turned upside down to mean fetus=baby, therefore, abortion=murder

[jbauer]

If anyone has taken a bioethics class, this stuff isn't surprising. Some say that the child really doesn't become a person till around age 7.

7 do you have kids? More like 27

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Wow this is some sick shit.

I am glad you guys post these abortion type articles. It's really starting to open my mind.

[ChristianAnarchist]

I have to agree... Abortion is the murder of the youngest humans. This position is consistent with the belief that life begins at conception. If you allow the killing of a -8 month old human, what exactly IS the difference in killing a 0 day old human??

[supermario21]

7 do you have kids? More like 27

Haha I agree with your sentiment. My main point is that the bioethicist clan is a dangerous one.

[supermario21]

And yes abortion is murder, I totally support Rand's personhood bill.

[Matthew5]

Good point...what's so magical about the birth canal?

[abacabb]

Time to start killing the retarded, and the sick, and the poor, and the politically inexpedient...

[RonPaulFanInGA]

If it's no different, shouldn't the Right to Choose crowd be all over this? Maybe Planned Parenthood can make a little larger of a profit each year.

[Matthew5]

If it's no different, shouldn't the Right to Choose crowd be all over this? Maybe Planned Parenthood can make a little larger of a profit each year.

I agree, I hear this term "viability" thrown around by Pro-choicers, but how are newborns any more viable?

[cheapseats]

Maybe with six or sixteen or sixty more ABORTION IS MURDER threads, the Republican Party Takeover contingent of the Liberty Moovement can become the straightforward ANTI ABORTION wing, and we can clarify whether "social conservatism" broadens or shrinks the 'R' base.

[jbauer]

Maybe with six or sixteen or sixty more ABORTION IS MURDER threads, the Republican Party Takeover contingent of the Liberty Moovement can become the straightforward ANTI ABORTION wing, and we can clarify whether "social conservatism" broadens or shrinks the 'R' base.

I've always been pro-life. I just figure that abortion isn't going to change regardless of how much pressure each side puts onto it. Thus there are bigger fish to fry. That being the case it doesn't change my views on it. Abortion after conception is murder.

[cheapseats]

No this thread just show's why extremes = crap. I can come off just as crazy as these two on any issue if I take it to the same extreme.

Non interventionism? We need to build a plastic bubble around us!..

pro life? we need to have people watching the mother 24/7 after conception to make sure she does noting to harm the fetus!

Gay marriage? We need to let pigs marry humans!

Against gay marriage? We need to put gay people in jail!

Yep.



All your doing here is appealing to the extremes.

Appealing to (one might say GOOSING) extremes keeps the numbers small. Impassioned, but small. Intense enough to SEND MORE MONEY ad infinitum, but never large enough to "settle" the issue by getting their way.

FIGHTING is more profitable than peace, for the Deciders. If broad masses were gettin' along swell, on what basis would politicians issue urgent pleas for donations?

[mad cow]

Yep.




Appealing to (one might say GOOSING) extremes keeps the numbers small. Impassioned, but small. Intense enough to SEND MORE MONEY ad infinitum, but never large enough to "settle" the issue by getting their way.

FIGHTING is more profitable than peace, for the Deciders. If broad masses were gettin' along swell, on what basis would politicians issue urgent pleas for donations?

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed.
That is the position of the 'experts' in the article.Did you not read it?Do you not consider this position to be extreme?

[Anti Federalist]

Only a matter of time.

The very old and very young first.

Whoo, I do not want any part of this future coming down the pike, talk about a fucking nightmare.

[Christian Liberty]

Indeed...

If I ever have kids and they ever touch them somebody is going to die....

[Brett85]

I completely agree with these people. There's no difference between killing a baby in the womb and killing a baby outside the womb. At least they have a consistent position.

[heavenlyboy34]

Only a matter of time.

The very old and very young first.

Whoo, I do not want any part of this future coming down the pike, talk about a fucking nightmare.
And the disabled, of course. The People shall be of, by, and for The State. The weak cannot serve The State properly, and must be disappeared.

[Anti Federalist]

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed.
That is the position of the 'experts' in the article.Did you not read it?Do you not consider this position to be extreme?

Forty years ago, the idea of two homosexual men getting married would have been "extreme".

They just float these ideas out there, (which when you think about, these ideas are really just old ideas, reformulated) until critical mass is reached.

Once the initial premise is granted and accepted, it then becomes just a matter of time.

[Christian Liberty]

And the disabled, of course. The People shall be of, by, and for The State. The weak cannot serve The State properly, and must be disappeared.

And every day I feel like more and more of an anarchist... I want a happy medium of extremely limited government (Don't know if that's "Medium" but whatever) but if it comes down to throwing out the baby with the bathwater, or drowning in the bathwater... yeah... I know which side I'm on and it isn't theirs.

[Anti Federalist]

And the disabled, of course. The People shall be of, by, and for The State. The weak cannot serve The State properly, and must be disappeared.

Very good, citizen, this is correct.

[Anti Federalist]

I completely agree with these people. There's no difference between killing a baby in the womb and killing a baby outside the womb. At least they have a consistent position.

I agree as well.

This is a logical and consistent progression of what is already established as a "right".

[Anti Federalist]

And every day I feel like more and more of an anarchist... I want a happy medium of extremely limited government (Don't know if that's "Medium" but whatever) but if it comes down to throwing out the baby with the bathwater, or drowning in the bathwater... yeah... I know which side I'm on and it isn't theirs.

And that's all that anybody needs to know.

Arguing about the minutiae of philosophy, is, at this point, like arguing whether this train we are on is bound for Bergen/Belsen or Auschwitz.

[Noob]

They are pushing hard to get China's One-child Policy adopted in order to save the world..

[cheapseats]

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed.
That is the position of the 'experts' in the article.Did you not read it?Do you not consider this position to be extreme?

I read it. It is extreme. It emanates from England. LOTS of extreme stuff comes from "experts" in LOTS of countries.

Abortion Hysterics are CHERRY PICKING gruesomeness, an ironic consistency of THEIRS.

[Christian Liberty]

And that's all that anybody needs to know.

Arguing about the minutiae of philosophy, is, at this point, like arguing whether this train we are on is bound for Bergen/Belsen or Auschwitz.

Its honestly also convenient in real life conversations, it would be a waste of a lot of time to explain to people how private defense agencies work and whatnot (I do sort of understand the ideal behind it although I'm not sure its totally realistic) when what we ought to be doing is getting people who are not libertarian in any sense skeptical about extreme government excess and into some kind of limited government position (Or purely anarchist position, it doesn't matter.)

+1.

[Anti Federalist]

I read it. It is extreme. It emanates from England. LOTS of extreme stuff comes from "experts" in LOTS of countries.

Abortion Hysterics are CHERRY PICKING gruesomeness, an ironic consistency of THEIRS.

I'd hardly call being opposed to enshrining "infanticide" as a civil right "hysterics".

[Christian Liberty]

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice (Goldwater.)

Anti-infanticide is pro-liberty...

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Liberty exists in the past, present, and future. To deny the unborn their future, is the greatest infringement of life and liberty.

[sailingaway]

More at link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

These are the people being put in charge of our death panels .... every country's death panals...

babies don't count and old people are now useless mouths.

'ethicist'.... I don't believe this word means what they think it means....

When govt forces people to pay their health care money into government, and mis manages it, these people become sadly relevant.

[jbauer]

They are pushing hard to get China's One-child Policy adopted in order to save the world..

No they're not. To have power you need people that give it to you. Now they may want more of their type of people instead of ours but thats their problem. The articles point is to point out that there is virtually no difference between a fetus in the womb and a newborn outside the womb.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Only a matter of time.

The very old and very young first.

Whoo, I do not want any part of this future coming down the pike, talk about a fucking nightmare.

It's very consistent to define life at conception and to consider the life of the child to be in the hands of it's parents. That's nature and it's the way God created us. Parents (not the "government") have always had the power of life and death over the children. It does not matter the age. Sure, in God's eyes (and in mine) it's murder for parents to kill their children. God will deal with them. It's not my job unless I see it happen in front of me. I would then have a moral obligation to intervene. When you give "government" (whatever that is) a say in the life of the children, you have ADMITTED that "government" (whatever that is) is really your god.

ANY "government" (whatever that is) involvement in the life of ANY children means you support the idea that "government" (whatever...) has some superior position over the parents.

I will take the chance that the COLLECTIVE decisions of parents over their children will be far better than ANY decisions by "government"...

[Smart3]

While I still haven't decided on the ethics for this issue, there is perhaps a slippery slope when one rules a perfectly healthy baby to be less human than a five year old (who is also less human than a 21 year old apparently)

Personally, I can't see euthanasia of infants as justifiable unless there are unforeseen problems that will lead to a life filled with suffering/pain and an inevitable imminent death. There's no point in keeping it alive if it will die shortly anyways.

[robert68]

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice (Goldwater.)

Anti-infanticide is pro-liberty...

Goldwater was pro-choice.

[heavenlyboy34]

Goldwater was pro-choice.
I doubt he considered "aborting" birthed children a reasonable choice.

[Christian Liberty]

Goldwater was pro-choice.

Not after birth, lol.


It's very consistent to define life at conception and to consider the life of the child to be in the hands of it's parents. That's nature and it's the way God created us. Parents (not the "government") have always had the power of life and death over the children. It does not matter the age. Sure, in God's eyes (and in mine) it's murder for parents to kill their children. God will deal with them. It's not my job unless I see it happen in front of me. I would then have a moral obligation to intervene. When you give "government" (whatever that is) a say in the life of the children, you have ADMITTED that "government" (whatever that is) is really your god.

ANY "government" (whatever that is) involvement in the life of ANY children means you support the idea that "government" (whatever...) has some superior position over the parents.

I will take the chance that the COLLECTIVE decisions of parents over their children will be far better than ANY decisions by "government"...

I don't think saying "Government should stop people from committing murder" is in any way the same thing as saying that you worship government. That's also why I advocate limited government instead of anarchy...

[robert68]

Not after birth, lol.




LOL, you don't know what "pro-choice" means, or care what Goldwater's view was (yet quote him).

[bolil]

So this is an extension of the parasite argument? Is that correct? Homeless people don't produce, they attach themselves like parasites to their chosen active site, the dumpster. Should we round em up and kill em? How much time passes before a jobless/homeless persons becomes a parasite and eligible for removal?

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't think saying "Government should stop people from committing murder" is in any way the same thing as saying that you worship government. That's also why I advocate limited government instead of anarchy...
In a way it is. Ascribing such authority over others without their express approval and assuming you are correct to do so is wishful thinking to the point of religion...as you'd have to deify (at least to some extent) humans and earthly institutions to believe they can achieve the minarchist ideal. (for more, see "Democracy: The God That Failed")

[Origanalist]

Forty years ago, the idea of two homosexual men getting married would have been "extreme".

They just float these ideas out there, (which when you think about, these ideas are really just old ideas, reformulated) until critical mass is reached.

Once the initial premise is granted and accepted, it then becomes just a matter of time.

A thousand times....this^^^^^

This is by no means the first time I have heard this ghoulish evil spew. And it won't be the last.

[ChristianAnarchist]

I don't think saying "Government should stop people from committing murder" is in any way the same thing as saying that you worship government. That's also why I advocate limited government instead of anarchy...

Sorry but that's just wrong... "Government" (whatever THAT is) has never been responsible for "stopping" people from doing anything. The only thing that they supposedly had been entrusted with is PUNISHING those who violate some words written down on paper...

[heavenlyboy34]

Sorry but that's just wrong... "Government" (whatever THAT is) has never been responsible for "stopping" people from doing anything. The only thing that they supposedly had been entrusted with is PUNISHING those who violate some words written down on paper...
+rep "crime stopping", in a saner time long lost, was a civic duty rather than a "profession".

[Christian Liberty]

In a way it is. Ascribing such authority over others without their express approval and assuming you are correct to do so is wishful thinking to the point of religion...as you'd have to deify (at least to some extent) humans and earthly institutions to believe they can achieve the minarchist ideal. (for more, see "Democracy: The God That Failed")

I don't believe we can achieve the minarchist ideal, but I don't think we can achieve the anarchist one either. People suck, so it really doesn't matter. The question is really "What if MOST people didn't suck? Then, what would we do with the few bad apples that remained?" In other words, if you had enough support to make any society you wanted, realizing that people are not perfect, what would you do? Legalizing murder is not the answer here...

Sorry but that's just wrong... "Government" (whatever THAT is) has never been responsible for "stopping" people from doing anything. The only thing that they supposedly had been entrusted with is PUNISHING those who violate some words written down on paper...

Deterrent is at least something. Not necessarily enough, but better than not having it. I suspect many people in the liberty movement would kill some politicians if they could get away with it. Not that that in and of itself is necessarily so bad, but then when you start talking about the innocent... yeah...

You should not be able to kill innocent people and get away with it. The death of a murderer is justice, plain and simple. That applies to the abortionist, the common murderer, the serial killer, and the President of the United States.

[cheapseats]

...The death of a murderer is justice, plain and simple. That applies to the abortionist...

IF. YOU. ACCEPT. THE. RELIGIOUS. PREMISE. THAT. LIFE. BEGINS. AT. CONCEPTION.

The strength of the belief that life begins at conception does NOT make it so. Rand's PANDERING gesture at making it the law of the land is very far from MAKING it the law of the land.

But let's compare notes in 2016, as to how Abortion Hysteria serves y'all at the polls. Me, I think willingness...nay, EAGERNESS...to slap the MURDERER label on women and doctors will alienate much larger numbers than it will attract.

[mad cow]

And slapping the Murderer label on women and doctors who off their 3 week or 3 month old babies will kill you at the polls in 2046.
If we still have polls.

[DamianTV]

Someone please define "Expert"...

[heavenlyboy34]

IF. YOU. ACCEPT. THE. RELIGIOUS. PREMISE. THAT. LIFE. BEGINS. AT. CONCEPTION.

The strength of the belief that life begins at conception does NOT make it so. Rand's PANDERING gesture at making it the law of the land is very far from MAKING it the law of the land.

But let's compare notes in 2016, as to how Abortion Hysteria serves y'all at the polls. Me, I think willingness...nay, EAGERNESS...to slap the MURDERER label on women and doctors will alienate much larger numbers than it will attract.
What would it take to prove to you that life begins at conception? There's evidence on both sides of that debate.

[DamianTV]

It doesnt matter the evidence. What matters is people thinking they have a Right to tell someone else what they can do with their own bodies.

[heavenlyboy34]

It doesnt matter the evidence. What matters is people thinking they have a Right to tell someone else what they can do with their own bodies.
But it's not that simple. If the evidence proves that "personhood" begins at conception, it is legitimate to tell the mother what they can't do to their body to an extent because certain actions could kill the person inside her. (and you can make this argument from libertarian axioms, btw)

[DamianTV]

Arguments against abortion only push abortion into the Black Market. We dont need back alley abortions with clothes hangers again.

[heavenlyboy34]

Arguments against abortion only push abortion into the Black Market. We dont need back alley abortions with clothes hangers again.
And laws against assault push assault into the "black market". So? You're making a rather libertine (and weak, IMO) argument here.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Someone please define "Expert"...

An "ex" is a has-been and a "spert" is a drip under pressure...

[jclay2]

I first ran into these arguments in an ethics class in college 5 years ago and just thought they were off the deep end. Looks like it is taking on more and more of a mainstream view. Really sad. I really hope most of those holding this view do not have children.

[Anti Federalist]

I first ran into these arguments in an ethics class in college 5 years ago and just thought they were off the deep end. Looks like it is taking on more and more of a mainstream view. Really sad. I really hope most of those holding this view do not have children.

LOL - Oh they probably will.

They are enlightened and progressive enough to have children, don't you see?

It's you, Mundane, that this is aimed at.

Again, that which was old, is new again.

The idea of "culling the herd" is as old as antiquity, with ancient kings declaring that the first born of a entire generation be slaughtered, so as not to pose a threat to their power, to the racially motivated eugenics of more recent centuries, to now, where it is considered the newest and greatest benefit to the planet, to show how "green" you are.

When all it really boils down to is the ultimate power trip.

You can abuse a man, torture a man, and he will still, if strong enough, refuse you and die, recalcitrant to the end, defying you.

Be able to kill a man's offspring, his children...now that's a different story.