Faith

‘Yes, We Are Serious’: ‘Ethicists’ Defend ‘After-Birth Abortion’ Argument in Raucous Radio Interview

The two ethicists who made an argument for allowing “after-birth abortions” — the killing newborns who were not considered people by the authors’ definition of personhood — in a peer-reviewed academic article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics have received threats for their logic and thus have felt called upon to defend their position.

(Related: ‘Journal of Medical Ethics’ stands by publication of ‘after-birth abortions’ article)

Ethicists Explain, Defend Further Argument for After Birth Abortion

Francesca Minerva (Photo: Academia.edu)

One of the authors of “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, Francesca Minerva with the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne, joined radio host Simon Conway for WHO 1040 out of Des Moines, Iowa, to clarify the argument made in the journal article.

Conway launches into the the interview first asking Minerva “Are you serious?“ To which she responded ”Yes, we are serious.” Minerva then goes on to answer Conway’s questions for clarification about if what she and co-author Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne are in fact making a case in their piece for killing a baby after it has been born. Minerva confirms this and gives explanation as to why.

“For the same reasons of why you can have an abortion during a pregnancy,” Minerva said. “People have different reasons, right?”

Listen to the interview:

She notes that after-birth abortions should be permitted if parents decide that they want to prevent their child from having a difficult or painful life. One of the reasons many people abort fetuses, she notes, is due to diseases or other deformities. But, some of these disorders are not detected while the child is in the womb. In cases such as this, Minerva and Giubilini argue in their paper, termination of the newborn should be allowed. This sentiment should also apply then to healthy newborns, she says, because some people abort perfectly health fetuses for a variety of personal reasons as well.

Ethicists Explain, Defend Further Argument for After Birth Abortion

Simon Conway (Photo: WHO)

The crux of the argument is Minerva and Guibilini’s definition of personhood and when that begins. For some, like Conway, personhood begins when the fetus is in the womb. Minerva and Guibilini, who later joins the call, base their argument on a different definition of personhood, which they note and the editor of the journal pointed out in a blog post, is not new to the academic world. Here’s how they define a person in the article:

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’. 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.

Minerva and Guibilini understand that others may hold a different definition of personhood and when this begins, but emphasize that for their argument, this is the definition that stands. The two also state that they are not advocating in this paper that the practice become law, but as ethicists it is their job to “put forward moral arguments.“ Minerva stated on the radio show that ”We didn’t write a proposal to suggest this should be legal.”

According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the function of an ethicist, such as a medical ethicist, is in part to “[study] ethical standards in medicine“ and to potentially provide a ”method, procedure, or perspective for deciding how to act and for analyzing complex problems and issues.”

Minerva also spoke about the fact that this was published in an academic journal with technical language for discussion in academia. It is this technical language, such as the importance of recognizing the definition of personhood they take on and the flow of logic they follow from there to reach their conclusions.

“This debate has been going on in academia for many years,” Minerva said. “This is technical language. The meaning of personhood is being discussed in academia.”

Minerva says because of this debate and understanding of technical language in the academic world “academics are not shocked by this.” Kenneth Boyd, a Revd Professor Emeritus of Medical Ethics and Associate Editor of JME, understands this view point as an academic himself who helped review the piece for publication. He explains this position further in a blog post:

I know that arguing strongly for a position with which many people will disagree and some even find offensive, is something that philosophers are often willing, and may even feel they have a duty, to do, in order that their arguments may be tested in the crucible of debate with other philosophers who are equally willing to argue strongly against them.

Of course for that debate to take place in the Journal of Medical Ethics, many of whose readers, doctors and health care workers as well as philosophers, may well disagree, perhaps strongly, with the paper’s  arguments, we needed first to make sure that the paper, like any other submitted to the Journal, was of sufficient academic quality for us to publish; and the normal way in which we determine this is to invite academics in relevant disciplines to review the paper critically for us, so that we can eventually make an informed decision about whether or not to publish it, either in its original or (as in this case) a form revised in the light of the reviewers’ reports.

Satisfied by the reviewers’ reports and my further editorial review that the paper was of sufficient academic quality to be published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, and being charged with making the decision as an Editor with no conflict of interest in the matter, since unlike my fellow-editors in the relatively small world of international academic medical ethics I have never met the authors, and indeed personally do not agree with the conclusions of their paper, I decided that it was appropriate to publish it in the interest of academic freedom of debate.

The authors of the paper state that the have received threats, including ones to their physical well-being for the argument they put forward.

Comments (220)

1 2 3 ... 6
  • Corwin of Amber
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:31am

    Since liberalism is a mental illness that causes enormous pain (from all the hand wringing) I guess that means we can…Hmmmmmmm…I wonder….they’ll probably have Pelosi issue a waiver for that, but it bears investigation, doesn’t it?

    Report Post » Corwin of Amber  
    • SpankDaMonkey
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:49am

      .
      Just got through feeding my new Grand Daughter she’s 2 days old……

      And for the life of me, I just don’t understand this……

      Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
    • HKS
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:52am

      It’s a liberals method of re-defining murder. They have small minds ya know.

      Report Post » HKS  
    • StonyBurk
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:56am

      As liberalism is a mental disease — I wonder would this human? advocating after- birth abortion be willing to be first among those demented to be aborted? Or does it consider itself a “person”?

      Report Post »  
    • AM-Saves
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 8:26am

      It would be wise to acknowledge what is being done by these “ethicists”. Their publication is a Hegelian trap for fellow “academics” to stumble into and the radio interview is use of Overton window for the public.

      Report Post »  
    • Thatsitivehadenough
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 8:27am

      This is (finally) THE BEST reason to get all the progressives OUT of education & government.

      This is PURE Nazi thinking. Pure. Hitler would have loved to have this. Just think what another Hitler could do with this. Just think of what Obamacare can do with this.

      This SICK idea goes hand in hand with the study that in places where genocide has occurred, it was good for the environment.

      Sick. This is the result of secularism run amok.

      Report Post » Thatsitivehadenough  
    • watchtheotherhand
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 8:53am

      Molech = The image of metal was heated red hot by a fire kindled within, and the children laid on its arms rolled off into the fiery pit below. In order to drown the cries of the victims, flutes were played, and drums were beaten; and mothers stood by without tears or sobs, to give the impression of the voluntary character of the offering.

      Our Modern Day Molech might as well be called the god of profit and inconvenience. These guys would have served in the Molech priesthood. The drums of deception and lies are beating loud, aren’t they? I thought liberals were all about “progression”? The more their thinking is taken out to its logical conclusion the more “regressed” and barbaric it appears in nature. Amazing how supposedly educated individuals could justify such an act, but like I said previously if you are for “early” abortion you are being completely logically inconsistent if you argue against infanticide. There is no reason to arbitrarily assign right to life to a newborn and not to a fetus and if you do I would like a specific reason why. Any takers?

      Report Post » watchtheotherhand  
    • grudgywoof
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 8:54am

      My grandson is 6 months and I loved him the second I saw him. He is worth more than all the gold in the world to me. How sick must you be to try and find logic in killing a new born baby. How evil these people who have aquired power have become yet Jesus says we must love them.

      Report Post » grudgywoof  
    • memyselfandi
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 9:00am

      When I hear of “progressive” ideas they usually just make my heart sink…this one makes my blood boil!!!

      I can see it now… a panel of judges in hospital delivery room…
      is it alive…yep…
      is it a person…yep…
      live or die…
      yea or nay…
      live…all in favor….

      Absolutely disgusting!!!

      Report Post »  
    • Lonescrapper
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 9:12am

      But capital punishment is MURDER

      Report Post » Lonescrapper  
    • Silversmith
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 10:45am

      This heinous argument for infanticide only points up the fallacy of the argument for abortion in general. Masking itself as logical and rational, the problem stems from it’s starting place. One either believes life is sacred or one doesn’t. After that, both sides make sense. The fallacy is to engage this discussion as valid in any way, as it’s first precept is an act of faith – or lack thereof.

      These are the dumbest smart people I’ve ever heard.

      Silversmith

      Report Post » Silversmith  
    • watchtheotherhand
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 11:25am

      LONECRAPPER….has just demonstrated what many liberals like to do. Divert the argument, compare apples to oranges and then cry hypocrite. Don’t deal with facts and debate try to paint your opposition as inconsistent, hypocrites, liars, and double minded. They like to TRY to blur the lines between clear morally different scenarios and situations in an attempt to justify their murder of children. They like to try to turn the argument. But their games are easily detected and their foolishness easily exposed to most anyone with a brain. Thanks for the demonstration doofus……

      Report Post » watchtheotherhand  
    • watchtheotherhand
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 11:45am

      Wow no liberal takers to my challenge on this thread???? Very interesting. Usually their moronic comments abound on threads and yet conspicuously absent on this one. I’m sure they are reading these comments and yet they choose to remain silent. Could it be they sense the weakness in trying to speak against killing an infant yet defending the right to abort a fetus? I mean don’t be afraid to speak your mind on this issue. I just wonder if anyone would like to discuss why killing the fetus is OK but killing an infant is wrong. That is assuming they think killing the infant is wrong. I’ll check back later. Just a word of friendly advice I can use pretty much any argument for killing a fetus to justify killing a newborn.

      Report Post » watchtheotherhand  
    • watchtheotherhand
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 1:28pm

      Huh, still nothing? Guess they know when they don’t have a leg to stand on?

      Report Post » watchtheotherhand  
    • rushvillerocket
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 2:06pm

      This is murder, plain and simple!!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • Hollywood
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 2:16pm

      Promoters,and defenders of this agenda, are EVIL,and are of their father the devil. The Lord will seek his vengeance, for the MURDER of these innocent BABIES, WHOEVER offends one of these, it would be better for them,to have a millstone hung about their necks,and drowned in the depths of the sea. Matthew 18 V 6 [paraphrased] Justice will be done, Vengeance is mine says the Lord.
      I pray they will repent of their murders,and seek forgiveness from the Lord.
      Maranatha

      Report Post » Hollywood  
    • watchtheotherhand
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 3:13pm

      Uhm still waiting for all the lefties to chime in and either voice their disgust over the practice of killing babies or explain to me the argument for doing it. Wow, not even one taker. Cowards !!!!! They will not touch this with a 10 foot pole because they know to oppose this is to argue against abortion at any stage. Cowards !!!

      Report Post » watchtheotherhand  
    • PATTY HENRY
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 3:22pm

      WE BELONG TO GOD. WE don’t own life. We don’t CREATE LIFE. GOD CREATE’S life. HELL is waiting for those who destroy life while in the womb and don’t repent, but Killing a baby after it’s born? talk about destruction: MOTHER/FATHER/OTHER SIBLINGS/NURSING STAFF/DR. family/friends all suffer. THERE IS NO excuse…NONE to kill a child who has been born.

      IT”S MURDER.

      Report Post » PATTY HENRY  
    • LiberalGoodGuy
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:06pm

      How exactly did a purely academic article by a couple of ethicists end up being criticized as the morally bankrupt position of all liberals and progressives? As a died in the wool liberal, I can honestly say I know no one who agrees with this position.

      On the other hand, I know a lot of conservatives who apparently have no problem with the fact that their policies would result in the deaths by starvation, exposure and disease of lots of otherwise healthy, normal children who just had the misfortune of being born to parents who can‘t support them and didn’t believe in abortion, or meant to have them but then lost the ability to support them because George Bush’s policies destroyed our economy.

      Report Post »  
    • watchtheotherhand
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 8:57pm

      @ LIBERALDUDE………Yeah right, we have so much mass starvation in this country….Clueless..

      Report Post » watchtheotherhand  
    • aragona
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 9:37pm

      Let’s begin these post-birth abortions by aborting the authors.

      Report Post »  
    • PurrPurr
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 10:18pm

      Once the snowball is set forth down the hill, where does it stop? Know the movie “Soylent Green”? The ending of the movie is coming to real life. It’s only a matter of time before the snowball mows over the elderly. My parents, many years ago, spoke of how fearful they are that they would still be alive when euthanasia became legal. I pray that they live a long, healthy life, but die 1 sec before such a law takes effect. Timeline: “free love” (sex) in the 60′s, the “pill” in the 70′s, legalizing abortion in the 70′s. Add sex outside of marriage and sex as entertainment, rather than linking it to procreation, thereby causing it be a “dead act”. The lack of respect for the purpose and sacredness of the marital act was the shove that caused the snowball to roll. What ever happened to “Let it be done to me according to His Word”. In other words, trusting in God? We should feel honored that God thinks so highly of us that He allowed us to be co-creators. Abortion is a eternal, deadly solution to a 9 mo. “problem”. You’ll want to confirm this, but statistically, in the U.S., there are more persons waiting to adopt a child than there are babies being aborted. So don’t give me that bull about not being “wanted”.

      Report Post »  
    • TRUTHSENSE
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 11:55pm

      I think that after birth abortion should be legalized but limited. It should only be legal to perform this procedure on two ethicists per year. Of course, this procedure would not be needed at all if they would just do the responsible thing and take it upon themselves to eliminate their carbon footprint.

      Report Post » TRUTHSENSE  
    • corwin61
      Posted on March 2, 2012 at 1:35am

      wow i cant believe someone else likes/loves corwin and amber!! i named my son corwin!

      Report Post »  
    • Michael61
      Posted on March 2, 2012 at 11:24am

      “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.” – Richard Feynman

      And those “scientists” prove his statement just perfectly.

      Boolean logic is primitive. If you have correct axioms, you can make correct logical conclusions. Incorrect axioms lead to incorrect conclusions of course, no “ifs” or “buts”.

      Too bad Boolean logic (almost) never works. The Universe is full of paradoxes and cannot be described using primitive Boolean logic. We have to use fuzzy logic, probability logic, fuzzy clustering and pattern recognition instead of rigidly defined “Yes” and “No”, “True” and “False”, “Black” and “White”.

      Human language (and human consciousness as well) is a collection of fuzzy patterns and clusters connected by associative links.

      “Personhood” is a fuzzy cluster (bunch of fuzzy pattern-recognition rules). “Good” and “Evil” are fuzzy clusters. “True” and “False” are fuzzy clusters. Etc.

      “Is fetus a person?” – “It depends, maybe yes, maybe no”
      “Is it cold or hot in here?” – “It depends”
      “Is somebody brain-dead or still a person?” – “It depends”
      “Is abortion good or bad?” – “It depends”

      Never ask me “Is something true or false?” The only answer you will get is “It depends”.

      Report Post »  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on March 27, 2012 at 12:02am

      Grandpa tell me again how it was when you were growing up, you know before it was legal to kill babies and marry animals…….

      Report Post » snooop1e  
  • louaap
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:24am

    If there is a Hell and God I hope so! This lady is well on her way! I mean really! How can a person think like this? I am sure she is not a mother! Well she’s a mother but a mother of a different kind!

    Report Post »  
  • louise
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:22am

    According to this logical, highly educated woman of academia, parents who do not want to deal with the POSSIBILITY of a painful life, should just do the right thing and murder a newborn baby.

    According to this article, her paper was written for academia starting from a logical point and carrying that through to the logical end. Apparently it was not meant for people like me and my husband and others like us who are too stupid to understand the horrific evil they promote with such a sweet smile.
    This young woman and the second author are dead people walking. They advocate a culture of death not Life.

    Report Post » louise  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 10:55am

      These people are freaks.

      Report Post »  
    • Texas.7
      Posted on March 3, 2012 at 6:02pm

      They used to say a fetus isn’t “human”. I actually had someone on a message board years ago tell me that an unborn child is a tumor, or a parasite! At least here, she says the baby is human, just hasn’t reached “person-hood“ by her new definition” It appears that they have given up the old argument that a baby isn‘t a child if it isn’t wanted- but it looks like the baby must prove it is worthy of the gift of life now.

      So, a human can be a non-person for a temporary period of time… May I ask, under this definition, are you a person while you sleep? Without God, it could be argued that no loss would be felt at death. We will soon move from the “right to choose” or “reproductive rights” to the right for society to choose for us, like China. It will be patriotic for the sick, elderly and unborn to surrender their life for their country, kinda like paying taxes is “patriotic”.

      In this age of mankind, people actually attempt to define person-hood, argue @ the merits of killing our children, while some claim that these atrociousness against God are for a higher good. Soon, we will be told that we are selfish for wanting people (ourselves, our parents or our children) to live.

      I won’t spam here, but I believe we are witnessing our “Manasseh moment” as a society:

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sebelius-contraception-mandate-wont-cost-taxpayers-because-there-will-be-fewer-people-to-insure/?corder=desc#comments

      Report Post »  
  • friendfor truth
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:21am

    As was asked before in response to this article, “At what age do you become a ”real person?” We all know where this whole issue is headed. Call me a conspiracy theorist all you want, but this is purely about population control – this is Hitler and Communism all over again in a new package.

    The blood of these unborn AND born children are crying out from the ground. Our Creator is grieved to watch His children being murdered. People with these kinds of values literally have a depraved mind. They are the epitome of evil personified, whether they realize it or not. God help us!

    Report Post »  
    • Ayla_me
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 8:34am

      I totally agree with you on this. Just by being discussed, this is opening new doors for people to justify their child abusing…”they aren’t really people yet”. Where does it end?? Oh Dear Lord Jesus, we are soooo messed up as a people. The whole Earth groans for Your return. Maranatha, Come Lord Jesus.

      Report Post »  
    • Michael61
      Posted on March 2, 2012 at 11:31am

      Where does it lead? Easy:

      - Eugenics
      - Sterlization of mentally ill
      - Eutanasia of old and terminally ill
      - Planned Parenthood (free abortions for “unwanted” minorities and races)
      - all of the above (as implemented by Adolf Hitler)

      Report Post »  
  • shirlgirl63
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:19am

    Try to do this to animals and see what happens

    Report Post »  
  • HuckleberryFriend
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:16am

    “Ethics”… You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

    Report Post » HuckleberryFriend  
  • Temperate_Light
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:15am

    Think this says it all….

    Luke 17:2
    It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

    Report Post »  
  • Baddoggy
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:14am

    She notes that after-birth abortions should be permitted if parents decide that they want to prevent their child from having a difficult or painful life. One of the reasons many people abort fetuses, she notes, is due to diseases or other deformities. But, some of these disorders are not detected while the child is in the womb. In cases such as this, Minerva and Giubilini argue in their paper, termination of the newborn should be allowed. This sentiment should also apply then to healthy newborns, she says, because some people abort perfectly health fetuses for a variety of personal reasons as well.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Using this argument, my Parents would have aborted me when I turned 16….Becasue they thought I was insane.

    Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • NightWriter
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 5:09pm

      Me too! Thank God they weren‘t ’academics’!

      Report Post »  
    • Elisepaige
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 5:10pm

      Baddoggy. You are not fully understanding the argument put forth. Based on the argument, by age 16 the definition of personhood would apply to you, so, no, your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

      Report Post » Elisepaige  
  • jedi.kep
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:12am

    Sick bastards. Hitler 2.0 anyone?

    Report Post » jedi.kep  
  • lukerw
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:08am

    So “Ethicists”… implying “Ethical”… is Liberal Speak… for defending an Obama position!

    Report Post » lukerw  
  • ADNIL
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:07am

    They expect anyone with morals or a true sense of ethics to buy this? Seems like some people will say anything for their 15 minutes of attention.

    Report Post »  
  • flatdaddio
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:57am

    if this is ever approved, lets expand it to include the people who think it’s acceptable…

    Report Post »  
  • 1956
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:51am

    According to this logic, you could have a child 5 years old and discover they have a disease, and the parents can then decide to kill it because they didn’t want it to suffer. After all, how much can a 5 year old fend for itself? Or an eight year old? What does “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…” really mean?!? Define what that is exactly for the rest of us… because that pretty much means anyone at almost any time in their life… Give it some thought.

    This logic is but a small step from someone making decisions who will and will not be allowed to live. They believe they are gods, able to discern values and rights according to their own ideas of how they think life should be. They take the emotion, love, and faith out of it and boil it down to animals eating their own young.

    God help them see the error of their ways.

    Report Post » 1956  
    • 22
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:01am

      By their logic, all of the lazy, “can’t fend for themselves” occupy protestors should be taken out!

      Report Post » 22  
    • ADNIL
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:09am

      The state will love this. According to their logic, this includes all non-taxpayers.

      Report Post »  
  • momsense
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:50am

    I have no doubt that this will be seized upon by the left as a justification for murder of not only newborns, but anyone they deem as Inconvenient.

    Report Post »  
    • jasmer
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:28am

      It’s completely logical, if you really think about it. If you are dishonest enough to pretend that “life” doesn’t begin at conception, then there’s no real upper bound to when it really does.

      There’s always been infanticide in society. Only in the modern era has society become so twisted to pretend this isn’t infanticide.

      Report Post »  
  • Kippop222
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:49am

    The moral aegument they are making is based on the wants of the parent.
    Please tell me they see the incredible irony of their position!

    Converstaion:
    Doctor: I am so sorry for your gain, ma’am. The procedure failed and the child lived. I know how you must feel.

    Patient: Thank you. Would you please go ahead and kill the baby now since the first try was a swing and a miss? No skin off my teeth. I gotta be at the gym in an hour.

    Report Post » Kippop222  
  • 22
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:47am

    If only we could go back to the time of their births before they became such a wonderful “person”. If they keep this up, maybe we’ll redefine their classification as a “person”, a productive member of our society.

    Report Post » 22  
    • momsense
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:54am

      Read the Com munist definition of productive member of society and they the deaths of millions by people such as the leaders of Cambodia, VietNam, Stalin, Mao and Hit ler will be apparent. Socialism is only the insipid form of Com munisim

      Report Post »  
  • kindsoul
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:45am

    The crux in their theory is the word pregnancy. You can’t abort a pregnancy that has come to fluition. After pregnancy it’s called murder.

    Report Post »  
    • Baddoggy
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:17am

      Its called murder after CONCEPTION! That is what GOD says. Who the F are you to tell us that it is ok to kill a baby in the womb? You are no better than these sick fools!!

      Abortion…ANY abortion is MURDER!

      Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • louise
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 7:43am

      Kindsoul,
      It is murder either way. God tells us that He knows us BEFORE we are knit together in our mother’s womb.

      Report Post » louise  
  • cmaczko
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:44am

    “The authors of the paper state that the have received threats, including ones to their physical well-being for the argument they put forward.”…. perhaps they’re mistaking the “threats” for their own writings……………

    Report Post »  
  • spikebu
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:43am

    What qualifies them to judge “person hood”? Their morals do not seem loftier. If their standard is education, they defeated themselves.

    Report Post »  
  • kindsoul
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:43am

    Acadamia is in the habit of changing definitions. Ethics has been replaced by the word Rationalize.

    Report Post »  
    • trappedinwv
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:45am

      Well when these professors and researchers are paid by the amount of crap they publish, you get stuff like this and Manmade Global Warming.

      Report Post »  
  • HKS
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:42am

    Well since liberals have redefined happy and other traditional words, I guess it’s time to re-define what life is. I‘m thinking they better hope there’s nothing to this after life stuff as well.

    Report Post » HKS  
  • trappedinwv
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:42am

    Honey,

    What you are arguing for is neither new or groundbreaking. Others have often argued for the “right” to rid society of those they think are undesireable. Who peer reviewed this “work”?

    Himler?
    Hitler?
    Stalin?
    Mao?
    Margaret Sanger

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwW9-trDMDk

    You are not breaking any new ground here. Unfortunately this is how it starts, within 10 years discussions like this will be normal and anyone who disagrees with it will be extreme right wing religious terrorists.

    Report Post »  
  • THXll38
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:41am

    Hopefully God has a special place for people like this.

    Report Post » THXll38  
  • bigspike
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:37am

    never try to spell before the first cup of cofeee…er, cofffe…errrrr, cuppa joe

    Report Post » bigspike  
  • bigspike
    Posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:35am

    silly me, i thought an ‘ethicist’ was somehow related to ‘ethics’…now i see that an ‘ethicist’ is merely an ‘apologist for eveil’

    Report Post » bigspike  
1 2 3 ... 6

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love