Not as good as Kevin’s efforts, I’m sure, but since no one else is stepping to the plate….
Depressingly, two Australian professors and medical ethicists have written a paper arguing that newborn babies are not actual persons, are morally irrelevant, and have no moral right to life.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “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.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
After-birth abortion? I’m guessing the pro-choicers won’t be too happy with that nomenclature.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
The New York Times editorial board initiates it’s own war on biology in an editorial about an attempt in New Hampshire to repeal a law legalizing same-sex marriage:
Representative David Bates, the Republican who filed the repeal bill, argues that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and he even included a sentence that says: “Children can only be conceived naturally through copulation by heterosexual couples.” This is breathtakingly dangerous foolishness.
Ah, the breathtakingly dangerous foolishness of how babies are made.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
How about a little March Madness primer:
Filed under: Uncategorized | 14 Comments »
