If An Academic Says It, That Makes It OK

Posted on | April 13, 2012 | 22 Comments

by Smitty

Check out this picture of the World’s Youngest Blogger a year ago:

Two medical ethicists connected to Oxford University are arguing in Oxford’s Journal of Medical Ethics that babies have no moral status, and can be killed because they are only “potential persons” rather than “actual persons.” They also argue that if a newborn is disabled, it can be killed.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said in their defense, “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.” When asked about the threats made against the article’s authors, he casually categorized them as “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

Here he is today, reacting to this wretchedness:

Lord have mercy.

Udpate: linked by Da Tech Guy. Go, Pete!

Category: Abortion

Comments

22 Responses to “If An Academic Says It, That Makes It OK”

jwallin
April 13th, 2012 @ 9:59 am

Hah. He’s got that pinky finger extended a la Dr. Evil.

A budding megalomaniacal evil genius? Stay tuned for the next 20 years. (you lucky dog you)
PaulLemmen
April 13th, 2012 @ 10:10 am

Such a sweet little man! You are blessed!
As to the idiots at Oxford: More proof of the inherent evil of Marxism. All liberalism is rooted in godlessness and Marxism even more so as it elevates the State to the status of god.
daialanye
April 13th, 2012 @ 11:04 am

‘…no moral status, and can be killed because they are only “potential persons” ‘

Think of how many adults to whom this would also apply.
Adobe_Walls
April 13th, 2012 @ 11:35 am

Do you have a list?
PaulLemmen
April 13th, 2012 @ 12:08 pm

He may not, but I have a loooooooong one, under the heading “Retroactive Abortion list”
daialanye
April 13th, 2012 @ 12:11 pm

“I’ve got a little list–I’ve got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed–who never would be missed!
…
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own;
And the lady from the provinces, who dresses like a guy,
…
I’m sure she’d not he missed!”
John Higgins1990
April 13th, 2012 @ 1:23 pm

This is a key issue for me. If it wasn’t for this, I may have actually listened to liberals once or twice. But since they so adamantly push infanticide, I just figure that the opposite of ANY liberal position is good.
OCBill
April 13th, 2012 @ 1:35 pm

Those threatening the “ethicist” aren’t fanatics. They just have an alternative criteria for “suitability for life”. It’s just an academic disagreement, not to be taken personally. It’s really all about whose standards should be used.

This guy should reject ad hominem attacks, embrace the controversy, and realize that maybe he’s the one that doesn’t have that much to offer society. It’s all a judgement call, really.
Adobe_Walls
April 13th, 2012 @ 2:04 pm

And you would always be correct.
Adobe_Walls
April 13th, 2012 @ 2:07 pm

…” reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

He should rethink his premises.
RichFader
April 13th, 2012 @ 3:54 pm

I’m curious as to when “it’s okay to kill babies post partum” became a “widely accepted premise”, given that “it’s okay to kill babies pre partum” is still, putting it mildly, deeply controversial.

The World’s Youngest looks like he’s channelling Penn Jillette’s “STFU”.
Charles
April 13th, 2012 @ 4:49 pm

Why stop with newborns with disabilities? Why not medical ethicists with moral blindspots who are incapable of attributing to a newborn’s existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to all os us?
richard mcenroe
April 13th, 2012 @ 5:41 pm

I have a long list of adults who have forfeited more moral value than any foetus is conceived with. What say we start with them?
Bob Belvedere
April 13th, 2012 @ 6:41 pm

Any one the quotes G&S is all right in my book – it’s refreshing.
Bob Belvedere
April 13th, 2012 @ 6:42 pm

That calls for a little Ayn Rand: Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
smitty
April 13th, 2012 @ 6:56 pm

Although: The difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than in theory.
Quartermaster
April 13th, 2012 @ 6:59 pm

The Lord is merciful, but only when people quit defying Him and repent. As society declines more rapidly, the likelihood of repentance becomes more remote. I doubt His mercy will hold Him back much longer.
sablegsd
April 13th, 2012 @ 7:24 pm

He’s adorable. Look at those long eyelashes!
Dandapani
April 13th, 2012 @ 7:46 pm

I hate you, Smitty. Why? Because you aren’t my son and that’s not my grandchild. 🙂 Bless you both.
Taxpayer1234
April 13th, 2012 @ 7:50 pm

“The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

“Widely accepted premises”–sounds an awful lot like TRUTH to me. Which makes their statement a wee bit circular.

And thanks for teh kewtness update!!!
Notthatwto
April 14th, 2012 @ 12:09 am

I believe that Ethecists have no moral status, and can be killed because they are only “potential persons” rather than “actual persons.” Especially after opening their pie holes and prove their lack of moral status.

The purpose of “Ethicists” is to rationalize unethical liberal positions.
Datechguy's Blog » Blog Archive » Why stop at aborting the unborn says ‘Ethicists’ » Datechguy's Blog
April 15th, 2012 @ 12:08 pm

[…] would say I was surprised at this post at Breitbart (via smitty) but that would be as dishonest as a Democrat in the White House denying they are connected with […]