Quantcast

Required to be deemed as a person: “minimum intelligence,” “self awareness,” “memory,” and “communication" to qualify.

Katherine 2012/03/07 16:30:47


Analyst: Infanticide argument shouldn't surprise
Common idea in philosophy seeking to maximize pleasure and minimize pain
Published: 14 hours ago

A recent report in a medical ethics journal arguing the benefits of infanticide is simply a rehash of what members of the Obama administration have advocated regarding how Obamacare should be implemented, according to the head of a group that defends the unborn.

The recent paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics, titled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” argued that infanticide “should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled” because the authors do not believe a newborn is a person.

Alberto Giubilin, a philosopher from the University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, an ethicist from the University of Melbourne, said killing a newborn is not a crime because that person does not exist.

They claim the child is not a person until they are capable of understanding they are a sentient being and until then “the interests of actual people over-ride the interest of merely potential people.”

Gualberto Garcia Jones, of Personhood USA, said the statements in the article should not shock to anybody, as they have been the same views advocated by Peter Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton who also has argued for the right to kill infants.

Jones pointed out that Singer is a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne, where Minerva teaches.

Last year appearing on “Up with Chris Hayes” Singer said. “A person is a being with some awareness of who they are, existing beyond simply the physical organism.”

When asked if that would exclude a four month old baby, he said, “Possibly. I don’t think that’s problematic to say a four month old baby is not actually a person, that’s simply true.”

Singer wrote as long ago as 1979, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons.” In 1993, he stated that newborns should not be considered a person until after at least 30 days after birth and doctors should kill some disabled babies immediately.

Peter Breen, founder of the Thomas More Society, says the problem with the premise is there is no way to have a firm definition of when one should qualify for legal protection.

“The logical conclusion of saying that someone’s life is worth less at one month after birth rather than later is where do you draw the line. You either have the right to life or you don’t.”

He went on to say that the authors were simply following the logical progression that began when abortion was legalized in the 1970s.

“In the beginning abortion advocates said the child was simply a lump of cells. Then with ultrasound technology it became obvious that wasn’t so,” Breen said. “Then the argument moved to suggesting that it was acceptable to abort a child out of the womb such as partial birth abortion, to finally refusing medical care for a child who survives a ‘botched’ abortion.”

Singer’s views on personhood versus being human stem from a philosophy known as utilitarianism where the stated goal is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the most people possible. It was popularized by Joseph Fletcher, an apostate Episcopalian minister who became an atheist and was hailed as the “patriarch of bioethics.”

Fletcher popularized the distinction between a human being and person that is central to Singer’s ethics proposing a formula which included requirements such as “minimum intelligence,” “self awareness,” “memory,” and “communication” to qualify as a person.

While some in the pro-abortion community would deny it, a key element in the movement to move personhood beyond birth is a lack of belief that human beings are unique creatures made in the image of God.

Singer says, “Some opponents of abortion respond that the fetus, unlike the dog or chimpanzee, is made in the image of God, or has an immortal soul. They thereby acknowledge religion is the driving force behind their opposition. But there is no evidence for these religious claims, and in a society in which we keep the state and religion separate, we should not use them as a basis for the criminal law, which applies to people with different religious beliefs, or to those with none at all.”

Singer has also advocated euthanasia for persons who lack the “capacity to understand the choice between continued existence and non-existence.”

This philosophy could help explain why as a state senator in Illinois, Obama opposed a bill that would have provided the right to medical care to babies who survived a “botched” abortion.

Obama opposed the bill arguing that it would place an “undue burden on the mother.”

His opposition was striking in that many pro-choice lawmakers supported the bill because it was assumed that the woman’s right to choose ended when the child was born.

During the debate on passing Obamacare, Singer also advocated for rationing health care. In an article for the New York Times magazine on July 15, 2009, he said, “The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable. Then we can ask, what is the best way to do it?”

Slippery slope, don't you think?


united premise form health care rationing inescapable desirable slippery slope


1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJIKe9eJLh4&feature;=related
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL2k5SMKrY4

Read More: http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/analyst-infanticide-arg...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • NoBama Man 2012/03/18 19:59:02 (edited)
    NoBama Man
    +1


    A picture began circulating in November. It should be 'The Picture of the Year,' or perhaps, 'Picture of the Decade.' It won't be. In fact, unless you obtained a copy of the US paper which published it, you probably would never have seen it.

    The picture is that of a 21-week-old unborn baby named Samuel Alexander Armas, who is being operated on by surgeon named Joseph Bruner.
    The baby was diagnosed with spina bifida and would not survive if removed from his mother's womb. Little Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta. She knew of Dr. Bruner's remarkable surgical procedure. Practicing at Vanderbilt Univ Med Ctr in Nashville, he performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb.

    During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus via C-section and makes a small incision to operate on the baby. As Dr Bruner completed the surgery on Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny, but fully developed hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. Dr Bruner was reported as saying that when his finger was grasped, it was the most emotional moment of his life, and that for an instant during the procedure he was just frozen, totally immobile.

    The photograph captures this amazing event with perfect clarity. The editors titled the...


    hand of hope

    A picture began circulating in November. It should be 'The Picture of the Year,' or perhaps, 'Picture of the Decade.' It won't be. In fact, unless you obtained a copy of the US paper which published it, you probably would never have seen it.

    The picture is that of a 21-week-old unborn baby named Samuel Alexander Armas, who is being operated on by surgeon named Joseph Bruner.
    The baby was diagnosed with spina bifida and would not survive if removed from his mother's womb. Little Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta. She knew of Dr. Bruner's remarkable surgical procedure. Practicing at Vanderbilt Univ Med Ctr in Nashville, he performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb.

    During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus via C-section and makes a small incision to operate on the baby. As Dr Bruner completed the surgery on Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny, but fully developed hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. Dr Bruner was reported as saying that when his finger was grasped, it was the most emotional moment of his life, and that for an instant during the procedure he was just frozen, totally immobile.

    The photograph captures this amazing event with perfect clarity. The editors titled the picture, 'Hand of Hope.' The text explaining the picture begins, 'The tiny hand of 21-week-old fetus Samuel Alexander Armas emerges from the mother's uterus to grasp the finger of Dr Joseph Bruner as if thanking the doctor for the gift of life.'
    Little Samuel's mother said they 'wept for days' when they saw the picture. She said, 'The photo reminds us pregnancy isn't about disability or an illness, it's about a little person. Samuel was born in perfect health, the operation 100 percent successful.

    ObamaCare will not only prohibit and forbid such a surgery from ever taking place, it will demand the execution of babies like Samuel as "unfit" and "burdensome on the state".
    (more)
  • Katherine NoBama Man 2012/03/18 22:09:28
    Katherine
    +1
    NoBama, that was such a well-written, fantastic story, and a great point. Made me tear up. Wish I could give you more raves or something. Thank you for adding it. Not sure if anyone knew the story behind the picture, and you are so correct that ObamaCare would have let set this little miracle of life aside to die. There was another story of a baby in Canada, who goes by Baby Joseph that you should check out. They had to come here to save the baby. Also this one http://www.sodahead.com/unite... Thanks again.
  • NoBama Man Katherine 2012/03/19 00:40:05
    NoBama Man
    +1
    Thanx...but I did not write it, I was merely passing it on. It is very well done and I didn't want to take anything away in interpretation. An incredible story AND pic.
  • Rore73 2012/03/07 22:37:05
    Rore73
    +3
    Those that don't believe newborns are humans, are inhuman!
  • zbacku 2012/03/07 17:02:04
    zbacku
    +4
    The mind of a Liberal is nothing more than the mind of a HITLER.   nazis
  • The Winter Sodahead 2012/03/07 16:48:19
    The Winter Sodahead
    +2
    oh dear...
  • DefendnProtect 2012/03/07 16:48:13
    DefendnProtect
    +2
    Absolutely a slippery slope under a totalitarian regime.

    In a free society no. No parent would let their children die if it wasn´t for a very good reason.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/15 06:03:53

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals