fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society

It's a rare time when humor and horrific collide, but it does happen, and this is one of those occasions.

There is trouble on the horizon: two scientists, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, had the audacity to publish a paper in Journal of Medical Ethics in which they argue that “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.”

There has been considerable backlash, including death threats. 

This is entirely unacceptable, as the scientists have published their work in a scientific journal. This is what happens when the great unwashed are permitted to examine scientific findings.

Indeed, as noted by 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”.

Therein lies the amusing part: the good professor actually appears to believe that liberals have "values". 

Perhaps they do; Adolph Hitler, Maraget Sanger, and a host of other liberals advocated strongly in favor of eugenics as a means of weeding out the unimportant biological strains intwertwining humanity, in order to create a more perfect world. That, after all, is the defining trait of the liberal: they know how to create a more perfect world. In order to do so, it is important to weed out the defectives, who may disagree with them, and it is important to establish rules that all others must embrace (see: AlGore, Global Warming, Jet travel, multiple "homes").

The scientists state 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”. Well, at least they don't use the generally accepted term, "infanticide". This is true science, unquestionably.

By now, you may have ascertained where the "horrific" part, referenced above, comes into play. What's the difference between abortion and later infanticide? Why should you not eliminate old folks? If homosexuals cannot contribute something positive to the gene pool, should they not be eliminated? Why should we stop there?

This, as the good professor noted, is the true face of a liberal society.

 

Comments

[Sam L.]

I, for one, appreciate their efforts in showing us the true face of liberalism.

[Max]

It is rare, but refreshing, to see them admit where they want to take the rest of us.

[ZZMike]

Reminds me of a time in English science history (or maybe ours) when someone asked a famous inventor what use this new thing would be, and he answered "Of what use is a newborn baby?". (Turns out to have been Franklin.)

"Journal of Medical Ethics" - ? ? ?

They don't seem to say at what point the glob of cells becomes a real human.

Most civilized societies consider age 7 or so to be "the age of reason". Up until that time, then, we can take them up into the mountains and leave them there.

"The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view."

That's certainly true. However, moral relativism is a terribly dangerous and false belief.

[Max]

I can't get past the "editor's" comment about "liberal values". Makes me laugh every time I think of it.

[Sam L.]

I trust that's a sardonic laugh...

[Max]

I don't know - it's just a natural reaction to idiocy.