... according to a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University:
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. … (read it all at The Telegraph)
As John Hinderaker at Powerline notes:
... what exactly is a “newborn?” How old does a child have to be before he or she becomes a “person?” Not all disabilities are apparent at birth. What if a child is three years old, say, when his parents realize that he has a disability of some sort? Or what if the child is ten, and the state finds out that she has a hitherto-undiscovered condition that will require expensive medical treatment? Is it too late to kill the child, or not? And what about mentally disabled infants? Do the mentally disabled ever become “persons?”
Just goes to show, when you pass a law that it is OK to kill a baby in the uterus, it is a very slippery slope to killing them outside the uterus.
Tom Blumer at NewsBusters notes:
One thing you can say about an odious paper published at the misnamed Journal of Medical Ethics on February 23 (abstract; full text) is that at least its authors, Australians Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, didn't fall back on abortion-supporting American politicians' obfuscating "choice" language in discussing what they advocate.
Donald Sensing on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's comment that "... the "most fortunate Americans" should pay more in taxes for the "privilege of being an American."
So in Geithner land, being born an American is a privilege. (Of course, to most of the Left, being born at all is a prvilege.)
They tell us what they really think, don't they.