Author says she was “just using logical arguments” in concluding infanticide acceptable
We were just funning around, Dr. Francesca Minerva told the Sydney Morning Herald, when she and a colleague wrote that “We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.” That article—“After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”—was “a theoretical and academic article,” she protested to the Herald. ”I didn’t mean to change any laws. I’m not in favour of infanticide. I’m just using logical arguments.”
Let’s kick the tires on that one before we kick newborns outside the community of protectable human beings.
At the heart of the argument is a constellation of ideas that Minerva and her colleague Alberto Giubilini argue are not new (which is true). It begins with that all or nothing premise: you have to meet [fill in the blank] criteria and then, perhaps, you are safe. And, oh by the way, we experts will decide what the criteria...
"We were just funning around"she said! Is this all academia has to spend its time with...I think not. It`s the old scenario, attack be stealth. First the suggestion is made which is looked on as horrific. The door has been struck. Then again & again the door is nudged open more & more.Of course repetation will do its work... & eventually the door is kicked in. A classic example is the UKs "dying with dignity" activist`s agenda which is nothing more than the Murder of the elderly,the child (as above) the handicapped, whom someone else deems wishes to end their (worthless)life. This crowd has been taking lessons from the History Channel & Nazi History.
Dr. Mark Allison | 1/20/2013
Dr. Alan Cairns | 6/22/2009
COMMENTS | 
