The fact that the president's own Twitter feed is flaunting infanticide, just wow...just wow.
they're
all for it still.
and now they want to be able to kill children up to the age of 3.
that's NEXT on the docket.
Why Did the Journal Publish an Article Defending Infanticide?
I am personally opposed to the legalisation ofinfanticide. However, as the Editor of
the Journal I would like to explain why the Journal would publish an article defending
infanticide.
The ethical discussion of infanticide dates back several thousand years. At least 100
articles have been published on infanticide in the Journal over its history, with articles
both for and many against it. Some of the world’s most famous living philosophers
have written about its merits and justification over the last 40 years, including
Michael Tooley,[1]Jonathan Glover,[2] Peter Singer,[3] [4] Jeff McMahan,[5,6] and
John Harris,[7]some in this Journal. McMahan argues that the permissibility of
infanticide is not only implied by certain theories, but by beliefs that are widely held
and difficult to reject [5].
Infanticide is currently legal in the Netherlands. The “Groningen Protocol” allows
doctors to kill neonates at the request of their parents if they are experiencing
unbearable suffering.
The active withdrawal of medical care (an intentional act that kills) is a standard part
of care of newborns with severe disability and suffering in the UK, US, rest of Europe
and nearly all of the world. This is sometimes called passive euthanasia.1
Over the last 40 years, there has been an active debate on the ethics of killing or
allowing severely ill or disabled newborns to die. Jonathan Glover’s landmark
Causing Death and Saving Lives notes that “Dr Francis Crick [the Nobel Laureate
who discovered DNA with Jim Watson in 1956] once proposed a two-day period for
detecting abnormalities, after which infanticide would not be permissible” [2] (p.168).
In the case of abortion, termination of pregnancy is permissible in most countries not
only for severe disability but also for reasons of maternal welfare (or other reasons).
Giubilini and Minerva extend the long running debate on infanticide to ask: if
abortion is permissible both for social as well as medical reasons, why is infanticide
permissible only for medical reasons? They ask: what is the moral difference between
a fetus and a neonate? They point out that both have similar capacities and if one is
permissible, why not the other?
http://jme.bmj.com/content/suppl/20...00411.DC2/Savulescu_JME_defence_editorial.pdf
moral relativity.
if abortion is okay, why isn't infanticide.
and of course
they are right.
one is a baby no one has laid eyes on yet, the other is out of the womb. only difference.
these people are psychopaths....is this news to us?
that's where we're going.
killing children is next, paralleling the decriminalization of pedophilia.
we're staring down the barrel of it right now.
