Another great leap forward

[teamsaint]

I did post this on another thread, but its such an extraordinary thing, I thought it deserved its own thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...on-experts-say.

I just wonder who is behind this kind of opinion(masquerading as research?)

presumably people like Jeremy Grantham, who thinks there is only room for 1.5 bn people on this planet.

or try this

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/killing-newborns-ethicallly-permissible-says-australian-philosopher-francesca-minerva/story-e6freuy9-1226287046257

[cloughie]

Looks like whatever it was has been pulled. All I got was this:

'Sorry

We cannot find the page you are looking for.
The page may have been moved, updated or deleted.
Or you may have typed the web address incorrectly. Please check the address and spelling.


Please also try the following:

Use the A-Z index;
Use the navigation bar above or the list of options below.
If you still encounter problems, then please contact us.'

[teamsaint]

try this instead. The first one was working when I posted it !!

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/killing-newborns-ethicallly-permissible-says-australian-philosopher-francesca-minerva/story-e6freuy9-1226287046257

[Frances_iom]

the final statement (not by the authors tho I think) "Minerva and Giubilini's paper was not an argument in favor of infanticide, as the idea of killing newborns was "largely not new," but they had applied these arguments "in consideration of maternal and family interests." - which is correct as infanticide was long (+ still is I think) treated differently than homicide and was commonly practised in some cultures (eg there is record of a dig in a roman town in UK where many bones of new borns were found - probably a brothel for the army)-as they point out very difficult to see the difference between late term abortion + this - however I'd hate to be on the receiving end of the hate mail that will be directed at the authors

[Lateralthinking1]

I think one newspaper article has had a couple of thousand responses. The Guardian? It has also gone round the world. I have seen a Russian article which links these people firmly to Britain - they are except in some (all?) cases their nationality - and the text is shown below a big picture of the swastika. Incidentally, one has also written a book called something like "Euthanasia is Great".

Again, I suppose it is a question about whether it is worth giving them the oxygen of publicity. Presumably they would do anything to rake in money except kill themselves. The logical extension of what they are saying is that you pull off the skin of a newborn child and use it as a doormat. Alternatively, stuff the body full of dope and have it as a liberal ornament on the mantelpiece.

Their being highbrow doesn't remove the spectre of Hindley and Brady. In fact, it appears that they are devoting their professional lifetimes to this study. It is their obsession. More important than anything they have to say, which I would see as fitting for a dustbin, we need to have clearer definitions of evil and who is mentally ill. Many who supposedly are aren't. Many who aren't are.

It may be that the types who go in for this sort of tripe had parents who lived the life of riley and ignored them from day one. You can't legislate that away or any subsequent delinquent, if intellectualised, anger. What really concerns me is this emanates from Oxbridge and is now published in a medical journal. Britain is therefore authorising it when it could be prosecuting for incitement.

[subcontrabass]

What really concerns me is this emanates from Oxbridge and is now published in a medical journal. Britain is therefore authorising it when it could be prosecuting for incitement.

The article in question has no link to Oxford (other than the Editor of the Journal - which is actually published by BMJ). One author works at the University of Milan and at Monash University, Melbourne; the other works at the University of Melbourne. You can read the original paper here: http://tinyurl.com/6qar9um (but the newspaper summary seems to have the main point that the authors argue that there is no moral difference between late term abortion and early infanticide).

[Lateralthinking1]

The article in question has no link to Oxford (other than the Editor of the Journal - which is actually published by BMJ). One author works at the University of Milan and at Monash University, Melbourne; the other works at the University of Melbourne. You can read the original paper here: http://tinyurl.com/6qar9um (but the newspaper summary seems to have the main point that the authors argue that there is no moral difference between late term abortion and early infanticide).

Thank you scb but the newspaper article begins "Mothers should be allowed to kill newborn babies.....a team of doctors linked to Britain's prestigious Oxford University claimed". It then refers to Professor Julian Savulescu being a Director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics. Its website denotes links to Oxford University. In fact, the Centre appears to have very close links with the politics departments there. This ties in with what I heard on The Moral Maze. The phrase "fascist enclave" springs to mind.

If people distributed leaflets throughout your neighbourhood advocating the killing of tramps within a five mile radius, poor spelling, perhaps they are unemployed themselves, they would be imprisoned. By contrast, the country is paying for these swines.

[Frances_iom]

Lat - please explain why in your opinion it is different than late term abortion ? - this has to be quite common in some communities as the male/female ratio of registered births cannot otherwise be explained. At which point do you darw the line between acceptable and repugnant ?
Are you accepting the Catholic teaching that abortion necessarily leads to euthanasia ?

[subcontrabass]

Thank you scb but the newspaper article begins "Mothers should be allowed to kill newborn babies.....a team of doctors linked to Britain's prestigious Oxford University claimed". It then refers to Professor Julian Savulescu being a Director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics. Its website denotes links to Oxford University. In fact, the Centre appears to have very close links with the politics departments there. This ties in with what I heard on The Moral Maze. The phrase "fascist enclave" springs to mind.

Perhaps you should look at what the Centre at Oxford has put on line about this matter: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk...g-infanticide/ (plus two more posts linked on the right).

[Lateralthinking1]

Lat - please explain why in your opinion it is different than late term abortion ? - this has to be quite common in some communities as the male/female ratio of registered births cannot otherwise be explained. At which point do you darw the line between acceptable and repugnant ? Are you accepting the Catholic teaching that abortion necessarily leads to euthanasia ?

Frances_iom - I am reluctant to go down this road as I have absolutely dismissed them. However, I am happy to discuss with you and others to the extent that I can. I am sure what I say won't be all that rigorous but actually that doesn't matter to me. First, I'm not a Catholic. I was christened C of E. I don't attend church. I have some faith of a kind. A bit vague but I like it that way.

Next, I do not oppose abortion. However, I oppose the scale of it to the extent that it so routine. I believe that the numbers are quite unnecessary where there is free access to contraception, which of itself I favour; it gets the balance wrong between rights and responsibilities; and I don't like what it symbolises about the disposable society, both on human ethical grounds and in the wider political context of greed. I do have personal reasons too why this is an area about which I feel strongly - some might see those as rather narrowly drawn and even very tenuous - but with respect I don't intend to go into those here.

I do think that the maximum time for any termination should be decreased, probably by four weeks. However, I am minded to take notice of up-to-date expert opinion and then decide accordingly. I guess some would pervert what is being put forward in the article - I deliberately choose that word but I don't mean to cause individual offence - and say that it could be an argument against late termination. I don't see it like that at all. Quite plainly, there is a world of difference between being inside and outside another's body. Whatever the inability of a baby to survive on its own, it is still physically independent in the most literal sense.

And then they point to a moral absence in the newborn or some such and that babies are only "potential people". It is my strong view - and they completely reinforce it - that there is an argument for saying that babies represent the pinnacle of human morality and in that way completion. This is not a dewy eyed point. To the contrary, I don't feel that there is a single case in history where subsequent social inputs during maturation have been more for the good than for the bad. I fully accept that this view might not be shared by the overwhelming majority. However, the fact that I have that view shows that it is possible to have a different perspective and hence what is being offered in the journal is political. I would say the politics of sickness and depravity. Actually, to my mind it is virtually a definition of hell itself. I hope that this treats your question with dignity which it obviously deserves.

[Lateralthinking1]

Perhaps you should look at what the Centre at Oxford has put on line about this matter: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk...g-infanticide/ (plus two more posts linked on the right).

Yes, thanks. Let's deal with this one.

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. It is a very quick piece of "work" if she did it all in Melbourne.

Co-author Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Savulescu is also a director – titled ‘What is the problem with euthanasia?’ He's therefore well in!

Oxford's Savulescu published the paper and has strongly defended papers in the same medical journal - what exactly is a "medical journal" these days? - putting forward arguments for euthanasia.

In the link, he appears to provide a vigorous defence of the discussion, placing it in a historical context. He begins with the line "I am personally opposed to the legalisation of infanticide". This has the deliberate effect of making it seem like being as regular a debate as that on the merits of proportional representation.

Hence he is flying a kite, expecting to reap the rewards of a whirlwind, and then only appearing to say that it is the others who have those views when death threats have been issued. Some might see that as extremely disingenuous and others the epitome of wimpishness at the heart of someone for whom "bully" would be just too weak a word. Of course, it is also highly representational of a position that is nearly all rights and hardly any responsibilities. No surprise there.

He calls it liberalism but how much of this "liberalism" should we stand? Will he next be publishing a paper that sees some morality in gas chambers being put to use on jews, gay people, the disabled, gypsies and anyone other than fair haired and blue eyed? Withdraw any taxpayers' money from his projects immediately please. It would be better spent on an amoeba.

[Lateralthinking1]

Finally from me on this one, Savulescu is on record as saying that genetic science can remove the unfair inequalities in life. The article he has published suggests that parents could decide if their child was disabled and destroy that child if they felt that appropriate. He has also discussed a greyer area, one that is more about having the ideal child. Do the parents want another son rather a daughter; someone with high IQ rather than an athlete? In other words, eugenics. Infanticide is a given in the new theory linked to Oxford. The supposedly new thought is family interests but that essentially equates to designer kids and it isn't new.

If such a system would essentially remove all rights to existence from the living child, what is clear to me is that it would also weaken both women and social structures. Currently, a woman's right to choose is largely based on the fact that an unborn child is housed in her body. If killing could apply to a living child, then men would have an equal say. If women did take the decision to kill a living child, the psychological impacts on them are wholly unknown. It seems very unlikely that they would be strengthened by that decision. And in the case of disputes between partners, revenge killings would be likely under the guise of child welfare.

As for society, by law, a child who is the victim of an ad hoc murder is murdered. Where he or she is deemed to be only a "potential person", legally it could only be a "partial murder". This could leave the loving parents of a child at the mercy of a system that sees their child as not being worthy of equal legal protection. Then there is state power. Potentially it would be possible for a regime to force all Jewish or Muslim women to have abortions but if it could insist that they gave birth first and then had their children killed, those religions would be broken. It would be used as a vivid propaganda tool precisely for that purpose.

I can only conclude that the authors and publishers of the material are arguably extremely dangerous people. They have caused unnecessary upset to people and made life difficult for themselves. If they have achieved nothing else to date, and surely that is bad enough, they have handed hard line anti-abortionists a gift and thrown any associated serious science into disrepute. If I were working on science to alleviate suffering, I'd be livid. That the work has been published in the BMJ is an outrage and a further stain on any remaining integrity in this country. If anything needs to be destroyed without mercy, it's their ongoing research.

[teamsaint]

Lat has got it nailed.

Dark forces are at work, in my opinion.

Here's Jeremy, a Doncaster boy !!

http://www.businessinsider.com/jeremy-grantham-commodity-prices-2011-6?op=1

kinda depends which side of the 1.5 bn line you are on. (not really I know !)
I really don't know who he thinks is going to do all the low paid work that keeps people like him so obscenely rich, but I guess when he has got rid of the excess, it will be his problem.

There are plenty more like him.
I don't think you need to be a conspiracy theorist to read "Business Insider " !!

[french frank]

[...] Hence he is flying a kite, expecting to reap the rewards of a whirlwind, and then only appearing to say that it is the others who have those views when death threats have been issued. Some might see that as extremely disingenuous and others the epitome of wimpishness at the heart of someone for whom "bully" would be just too weak a word.

What he also says is:

"This extension of the existing debate around infanticide from medical indications to social indications is relatively novel. I don’t personally agree with it. But their arguments – based on the similar moral status of the fetus and neonate – call for rebuttal."

The journal is a specialist one dedicated to matters of ethics. How can there be a philosophical debate about anything if one side is gagged? The opinions have been put forward: should an editor refuse to give them coverage because he finds them morally repugnant or simply disagrees? What is a journal on ethics for if not to discuss ethical questions?

"Freedom of speech is either the freedom to say things that others find detestable or it is no freedom at all. And this freedom imposes an equally stringent duty. We are all obliged to tolerate the expression of what we find detestable."

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/03/the-fragility-of-freedom-of-speech/

[kernelbogey]

The Guardian report includes this comment:

Julian Savulescu, editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, published by the British Medical Journal group [...] argues that the journal exists not to promote one moral view over another but to present reasoned argument. The controversial paper builds on arguments that have been presented by other philosophers in the past, he says.

There is a film of an hours-old baby being held by her/his father. The father sticks his tongue out: astonishingly, the baby responds by also putting out his/her tongue in response. This is a functioning person, albeit, as yet partially functioning. (Humans are uniquely dependent on parents for much longer than any other mammal.)

While I do not agree with infanticide, I support that this argument can be made. Inter alia it has stimulated the debate here. We could say that the current legal date for abortion in this country is arbitrary and it can be argued to move it either way. To stifle such debate is, of itself, a form or fascistic thinking.

As FF has quoted in the previous post:

We are all obliged to tolerate the expression of what we find detestable.