I don't believe this article!!!!!!

That is DISGUSTING .

In that case I don't think I will click on the link!

I wonder how much research grant they originally obtained to enable them to reach such despicable conclusions. It wont get anywhere. Sick.

What a pity this practice wasn't applied to these psychopaths!!!

This idea has been around for a very long time (see Peter Singer/ www.lifenews.com/2006/09/12/bio-1766/) and is simply a logical extension to the argument for abortion. In America there are actually laws in favour of allowing babies born as the result of botched abortions to die. This is infanticide and it's already taking place legally.

Sometimes logic is inhumane!

Anencephalic babies have always traditionally been LEFT to die. But as they have only elementary brains they wouldn't survive anyway. But that is very different from they are saying.

Bump! I'm surprised this topic has had only half a dozen responses.

Sounds like stating an extreme position for the purpose of debate - but perhaps they really mean it, in which case they should be put down,preferably not humanely. Also reminds me of Swift's 'Modest Proposal' which some readers, having no understanding of satire, took seriously when it was first published.
www.victorianweb.org/previctorian/swift/modest.html

grannyact
Maybe some of us are just too stunned by this article. Really silenced with disbelief.

The name of the Prof. who wrote it is Julian Savulescu!?!?!?!
Immediately googled him.
He is Romanian.

Romania has a long history........ which one would have to google for oneself.

Possibly a cat thrown among the pigeons to stimulate some debate among the snowstorm of flying feathers. Possibly he thinks it a genuinely helpful idea. As Johanna says he does not come from a country renowned for their treatment of the orphaned and disabled.

I can't see it being taken up here. Lets hope reactions make him unlikely to get any more research grants.

I wonder. I am totally sickened by this article. But I have always thought (re abortion) that it is the woman's body and it should be up to her what happens to it.

But is a living baby, still in the womb, any different to one that has just been born? And, as the killing of a newborn infant is unspeakably horrific, shouldn't the killing of the same baby unborn, be the same?

Perhaps that is what we are supposed to question.

Sorry, made a mistake.
The article is written in the Journal of Medical Ethics of which Savulescu is it's editor. It was written by two of his former associates.

I read this as anti-abortion propaganda. Nobody in their right mind would think it was a serious proposal.

He may not have written the article himself, but he was/is the editor.

whotsa is wondering whether we are supposed to question the difference between an abortion and a new born baby.

That would be a dangerous train of thought. I would have thought that medically there is a world of difference.

Surely killing a new born baby is " ethnic cleansing ?'

"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 disabled”.

That does sound as though they really believe it. Not just making a point about abortion.

Weirdos and sickos. Telegraph should never have given it print space.

Having read the thread I can't read the article - sorry.

Killing a new born baby is manslaughter or murder in this country. If it's perpetrated by a mother with a proven psychiatric illness she will be treated sympathetically, but anyone else will be prosecuted and imprisoned. Why these people should be allowed to promote the murder of infants is beyond me.

Greatnan, looking at the rationality of the argument it seems perfectly logical to me. I don't know about the second author, but the first, Dr Alberto Giubilini, has previously supported a pro-choice position on abortion.

Here is the Abstract:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue 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 disabled.

Logical but immoral, inhumane and against the law. Can you imagine living in a society where such practices are permitted?

There's a world of difference between terminating a pregnancy where the foetus is hardly formed, and killing a fully formed newborn infant. A newborn is definitely a person. Why wouldn't he/she be?

Their views are rubbish and shouldn't be allowed to appear anywhere in print.

They are NOT promoting the murder of infants per se, simply following through their position on abortion. These ideas are not new, Michael Tooley and Peter Singer made the same case, see here, many years ago.

JIngl - I'm with you there. Can't read any more of this now.

I don't understand why anyone would try to see the logic of what they are saying, unless they are forensic psychologists trying to assess these maniacs for treatment.