Saltar para: Post [1], Comentar [2], Pesquisa e Arquivos [3]

Super Flumina

Liberae sunt enim nostrae cogitationes - Cícero (Mil. 29 - 79) . Um blog de Rui Oliveira superflumina@sapo.pt

Super Flumina

Liberae sunt enim nostrae cogitationes - Cícero (Mil. 29 - 79) . Um blog de Rui Oliveira superflumina@sapo.pt

Admirável Mundo Novo

Através da referência feita neste artigo do Telegraph, cheguei a este artigo onde dois académicos advogam o aborto pós-natal (é assim que eles chamam ao infanticídio). Eis o resumo do artigo:

 

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.

 

É, sem dúvida, levar o raciocínio até às suas últimas consequências. Conforme explica o artigo do Telegraph:

 

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”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64% of Down's syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing”.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

 

Os autores explicam ainda, segundo o Telegraph que:

 

“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.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

 

Enfim, bem-vindos ao admirável mundo novo que assim respeita a vida humana!

 

Comentar:

Mais

Se preenchido, o e-mail é usado apenas para notificação de respostas.

Este blog optou por gravar os IPs de quem comenta os seus posts.

Mais sobre mim

foto do autor

Subscrever por e-mail

A subscrição é anónima e gera, no máximo, um e-mail por dia.

Links

Blogs

  •  
  • Notícias

  •  
  • Política e Economia

  •  
  • Religião

    Arquivo

    1. 2020
    2. J
    3. F
    4. M
    5. A
    6. M
    7. J
    8. J
    9. A
    10. S
    11. O
    12. N
    13. D
    14. 2019
    15. J
    16. F
    17. M
    18. A
    19. M
    20. J
    21. J
    22. A
    23. S
    24. O
    25. N
    26. D
    27. 2018
    28. J
    29. F
    30. M
    31. A
    32. M
    33. J
    34. J
    35. A
    36. S
    37. O
    38. N
    39. D
    40. 2017
    41. J
    42. F
    43. M
    44. A
    45. M
    46. J
    47. J
    48. A
    49. S
    50. O
    51. N
    52. D
    53. 2016
    54. J
    55. F
    56. M
    57. A
    58. M
    59. J
    60. J
    61. A
    62. S
    63. O
    64. N
    65. D
    66. 2015
    67. J
    68. F
    69. M
    70. A
    71. M
    72. J
    73. J
    74. A
    75. S
    76. O
    77. N
    78. D
    79. 2014
    80. J
    81. F
    82. M
    83. A
    84. M
    85. J
    86. J
    87. A
    88. S
    89. O
    90. N
    91. D
    92. 2013
    93. J
    94. F
    95. M
    96. A
    97. M
    98. J
    99. J
    100. A
    101. S
    102. O
    103. N
    104. D
    105. 2012
    106. J
    107. F
    108. M
    109. A
    110. M
    111. J
    112. J
    113. A
    114. S
    115. O
    116. N
    117. D
    118. 2011
    119. J
    120. F
    121. M
    122. A
    123. M
    124. J
    125. J
    126. A
    127. S
    128. O
    129. N
    130. D
    131. 2010
    132. J
    133. F
    134. M
    135. A
    136. M
    137. J
    138. J
    139. A
    140. S
    141. O
    142. N
    143. D
    144. 2009
    145. J
    146. F
    147. M
    148. A
    149. M
    150. J
    151. J
    152. A
    153. S
    154. O
    155. N
    156. D
    157. 2008
    158. J
    159. F
    160. M
    161. A
    162. M
    163. J
    164. J
    165. A
    166. S
    167. O
    168. N
    169. D
    170. 2007
    171. J
    172. F
    173. M
    174. A
    175. M
    176. J
    177. J
    178. A
    179. S
    180. O
    181. N
    182. D
    183. 2006
    184. J
    185. F
    186. M
    187. A
    188. M
    189. J
    190. J
    191. A
    192. S
    193. O
    194. N
    195. D
    196. 2005
    197. J
    198. F
    199. M
    200. A
    201. M
    202. J
    203. J
    204. A
    205. S
    206. O
    207. N
    208. D
    209. 2004
    210. J
    211. F
    212. M
    213. A
    214. M
    215. J
    216. J
    217. A
    218. S
    219. O
    220. N
    221. D
    222. 2003
    223. J
    224. F
    225. M
    226. A
    227. M
    228. J
    229. J
    230. A
    231. S
    232. O
    233. N
    234. D