Fwd: - This May Be the Most Shocking News Article You Will Ever Read!

[Guest guest]

Although this is shocking, sadly this should come as no surprise given our society's continued shift to a culture of death. What will you do to make a difference?MDSent from my iPhoneBegin forwarded message:Date: March 1, 2012 11:15:24 PM ESTTo: Subject: - This May Be the Most Shocking News Article You Will Ever Read!If you are having trouble viewing this email with images, click here . Please add jackamespe1@... to your address book to ensure our emails reach your inbox.

Promoting the Culture of Life and Fighting the Culture of Death since 1987

PO Box 5427 w Baltimore, land 21285 w Phone: w

Can You Help Save the Life of a Child?

Can You Make AMonthly Gift?

March 1, 2012

Dear Marguerite,

This horrific article appears in The Telegraph, a London based daily newspaper. Words can not express my degree of outrage, horror, and shame for mankind! This unpresidented savage barbarism may be unmatched in our history.... perhaps only the Caananites as they practiced infanticide in the Valley of Gehenna.

Please help us rebuild the value of the sanctity of God Given HUMAN LIFE all across America!

The Telegraphhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

By

, Medical Correspondent

1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012

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.

A group of ethicists has argued that killing young babies is no different from abortion Photo: Alamy

1061 Comments

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons†and do not have a “moral right to lifeâ€. 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.

The journal’s editor, Prof n Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal societyâ€.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?â€, 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.â€

Rather than being “actual personsâ€, newborns were “potential personsâ€. 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’.

Related Articles

Dorries: Abortion clinics need better regulation

23 Feb 2012

Illegal abortion of baby girls: Lansley refers clinics to police

23 Feb 2012

Abortion investigation: Available – if it’s a boy you wanted

23 Feb 2012

Abortion investigation: doctor willing to change reason for abortion

24 Feb 2012

Abortion anxieties

23 Feb 2012

Pro-lifers: 'Killing babies' article reveals truth of abortion'

01 Mar 2012

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.â€

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 senseâ€.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabledâ€.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases†in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the childâ€, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.â€

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion†rather than “infanticide†to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetusâ€.

Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.

Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled 'What is the problem with euthanasia?'

He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.

Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not newâ€.

What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interestsâ€.

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.â€

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate†has been an example of “witch ethics†- a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.â€

He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.

Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St 's University College, said: "If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say 'it's doesn't matter, she can get another one,' is that what we want to happen?

"What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new."

Referring to the term "after-birth abortion", Dr Stammers added: "This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide."

We must PRAY for Christ's mercy!

Long Live Christ Our King,

Jack Ames

Director

Defend Life

www.defendlife.org

Click here to unsubscribe

=