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.”
Lord have mercy.
Udpate: linked by Da Tech Guy. Go, Pete!
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)
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.
‘…no moral status, and can be killed because they are only “potential persons” ‘
Think of how many adults to whom this would also apply.
Do you have a list?
He may not, but I have a loooooooong one, under the heading “Retroactive Abortion list”
“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!”
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.
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.
And you would always be correct.
…” reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”
He should rethink his premises.
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”.
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?
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?
Any one the quotes G&S is all right in my book – it’s refreshing.
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.
Although: The difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than in theory.
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.
He’s adorable. Look at those long eyelashes!
I hate you, Smitty. Why? Because you aren’t my son and that’s not my grandchild. 🙂 Bless you both.
“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!!!
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.
[…] 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 […]