The truly strange thing about this is that Francesca Minerva, the author of the paper, is surprised by the death threats. After all, she says, “this is pure academic, theoretical discussion.” It obviously hasn’t occurred to her that the death threats were probably just academic and theoretical.
As the journal’s editor, Professor Julian Savulescu noted, Minerva’s argument that a newborn baby is not an “actual person” and, therefore, can be used, abused, killed and discarded is “largely not new”. It was used before in the Final Solution.
From here:
A researcher at the University of Melbourne has been the target of numerous death threats after she published a theoretical paper which argued killing newborn babies is no different from abortion.
The paper, written by Francesca Minerva and Monash University teaching assistant Alberto Giubilini, was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics last week and is titled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”
It suggests newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life” because they “both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life of an individual”.
Dr Minerva, who said the last four days have been the worst in her life, has asked for people to understand the perspective of her work.
“This is not a political paper, this is not a proposal for a law,” she told ninemsn.
“This is pure academic, theoretical discussion.”
Dr Minerva said the paper was based on thirty years of medical ethics discussions.
“Both a foetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of a ‘subject of a moral right to life’,” the paper states.
“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.”
They conclude their argument by stating: “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 disabled.”
Dr Minerva said she was not expecting the overwhelmingly negative reaction and believes her argument has been taken out of its academic and theoretical context.
What this “academic” does not realize is that her paper will be used, I stress WILL BE USED, by lobbyist who are trying, and will continue to try, to get the laws changed. Thus, she is either stupid or compliant when it comes to the murder of countless people. May god have mercy on her soul and show her the error of her ways.
Isn’t it blathering nonsense such as this that is generally cited as the “evidence” behind both political movements and changes to the Law? It is this intellectual chattering class that starts the ball rolling, and others then feel justified to follow along. Francesca Minerva has set herself up as a Pied Piper of sorts, but for all of her supposed intelligence, she seems dangerously distanced from reality.
Love the faux-innocence. As if a “theoretical paper” on something the establishment really objects to would even be published; or the author ever allowed to work again. This paper was published with the full intention of desensitising our horror at infanticide, as a first step. So it was with every evil that the establishment proposed to enforce.
there is no link to the paper you have written about however for some reason you have accidentally posted a link to a completely irrelevant article on the Nazi’s . this paper is meant for medical academics not only that but leaving a very sick newborn to die was common place in hospitals up until recent years, but I’m sure that all your knee jerk reactionarys will know about that and won’t take the words of badly written article which highlights nothing about what was ACTUALLY said in this article, posted no link to it and tried (badly I might add) to draw comparisons to Hitler. I am not in favour of the allowing newborns to die in anyway whatsoever but I require at least some evidence before believing the conjecture of a journalist. it is the job of a medical ethicist to bring these questions up precisely so those doctors with a god complex don’t make these decisions – it is published and discussed rationally then a conclusion is drawn and because of this people end up being safer for it at least from medical professionals – however I do feel that some laws need putting place to squash out bad journalism and the over use of sensationalism
Dr. Mengele’s Still Drumming”
See that baby in the corner?
Her life might not be so good!
I can tell she’ll be a problem…
That much, ma’am, is understood!
She’s not really quite a “person”;
Yes, we’re sure she’s unaware.
Her life may not be worth living…
Let’s “abort” and show we care.
She’s just not what we’d call “human”…
She’s not really at that stage.
“Cute” enough, but just not “with it”…
Unaware and disengaged.
She has no real moral standing…
Not just yet, and that’s the glitch!
She’s no diff’rent from a tomcat,
Or some tiny mongrel bitch.
We’ll decide for you what’s “human”…
When a “what” becomes a “who”!
On these shifting sands of reason,
Moral Law we may undo.
These things change, ma’am. Please don’t worry!
We know best about these things;
We’ve been schooled in Bio-Ethics,
Singing songs that Singer sings!
That’s the song of Peter Singer…
(Margaret Sanger sang it, too).
If that melody’s familiar,
Maybe you should ask the Jew.
That’s the downbeat of Eugenics,
Euthanasia’s Rhythm Band.
Dr. Mengele’s still drumming
Out there on that shifting sand.
“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teaching comes through hypocritical liars whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.” -The Apostle Paul (1Timothy 4: 1-2)
* * * * * * *
“[N]ew-born humans are neither persons nor quasi-persons, and their destruction is in no way intrinsically wrong.” – Dr. Michael Tooley, Professor of Ethics , University of Colorado, President of the American Philosophical Society (2011-2012)
“Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection than the life of a fetus. “ -Dr. Peter Singer PhD, Professor of Bioethics, Princeton University
“After ruling our thoughts and our decisions about life and death for nearly two thousand years, the traditional Western ethic has collapsed.” -Dr. Peter Singer, PhD., Professor of Bioethics, Princeton University
This “person” obsviously, doesn’t see herself as being sick, mentally sick. Nor do the people around her or reading her article. It should be recognized as the work of a sick person.
She’s skeany and sly, now, backing down, but she was serious, and was simply testing the waters, in how the Public would accept it. The Slippery slope. And if the Public would have ignored her writings, saying nothing, she ouwl have gone forward, and pushed it on to the gov. for the public.
Perhaps her parents should have aborted her. Then we wouldn’t have this question today. It’s obvious she had a pre-natal brain disorder.
Don’t think it will be stopped and forgotten, or she and others like her, sick, will not continue to push this forward. They’re like the pink bunny. They’ll keep trying and trying and trying.
One has to be ever vigilant.
it is a theoretical discussion and is highlighted as such. I do however question the rationale of someone who claims to be anti-abortion but seems to think it’s okay if people you don’t like could have been aborted.
don’t you think that is slightly more “sick” than positing a hypothetical within the medical community, a community you are quite obviously not part of.
your paranoid ramblings and suggestions regarding a retroactive abortion are a bit mental and I think you should go and see a doctor or at the very least see someone about your communication skills.