Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Avlívað nýføðingar: Eru vit óð í høvdunum?

Áskoðanin hjá Richard Dawkins í undanfarna innleggi, vísir seg nú at verða eitt sindur meiri útbreidd enn eg helt. Ein bólkur av etiskum serfrøðingum, í samarbeiði Oxford hava nú grundgivi fyri at eingin munur er á fosturtøku og at avlíva nýføðingar; veit ikki um hesir fara so langt sum Dawkins, í at avlíðing eisini fevnir um eitt ára gomul.


Í The Telegraph lesa vit:

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.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian 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 society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, 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.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. 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’....


“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.”
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 fetus”.
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 Martin 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.













No comments:

Post a Comment

Tað er einum og hvørjum frítt at viðmerkja og kritisera, men bannan, persónlig álop, og niðring kunnu verða strika.

Verður ákæra reist um óerligheit ella lygn, eigur viðmerkjarin ikki at verða duldur.

Trøll og persónar sum bevíst royna at eitra kjakið fáa ikki longur loyvi at luttaka.