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.
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
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.”
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.
What makes this act sensible, moral in your opinion?
What makes this immoral?
-When we abandon God and His ways, devaluing the valuable is common and expected.
-Everyone follows a 'code of conduct'. To me "a loving creator who is for us" is much more rational to believe in then the 'expert's' poison.
-So much for 'womens right to choose within their body'...now the experts are thinking "parents right to see, touch feel" and pitch away if they don't like.
While 'experts' are defaming the value of human life, other experts are launching animals by looking to give them human rights.
-Most powerful argument against such individualistic, humanistic and selfish thinking is to live my life placing the highest priority on humans by loving others, serving and solving problems.
-Often times non-theists declare, "who are you to impose your view on me?", to which I reply back, "who are you to impose your humanistic views on me?".