In an article published in the journal "Medical Ethics" (Journal of Medical Ethics), said that newborns are not actually a person and not have a moral right to life. The authors also argue that parents should be able to kill their children if after birth found that they were born with disabilities.
The magazine's editor, Professor Julian Savulescu, director of the Center Ehiro Oxford University, said the authors of the article received death threats since the publication of the article. He said that the authors of the threatening and abusive posts regarding the study are "fanatics opposed by the values of a liberal society."
The article, entitled "Postnatal abortion. Should the child live?", Was written by Alberto Dzhiubilini and Francesca Minerva — two former assistant professor Savulevski.
They argue that "the moral status of the infant is equivalent to the moral status of the embryo in the sense that both lack the qualities that justify the assignment of the right to life."
Newborns — not a "full-fledged personality," but rather a "potential person". They explained: "It is clear that both the fetus and the newborn — they are human beings and potential person, not the person in the sense of" moral right of the subject to life. "
"We say 'person' to mean idividuuma who can identify the existence, at least with the basic values — for example, such as the deprivation of the right to existence will be for her loss.
Thus, they argue that "it is impossible to put the appropriate moral harm the newborn, not allowing the development of the capacity to become a person."
Thus, the authors conclude that "what we call post-natal abortion (infanticide) should be allowed in those cases in which abortion is permitted, including those cases where the newborn is not disabled.
They also argue that, in the event that prior to the birth parents did not know that he is — disabled, they should have the right to kill the child, arguing, for example, that "only 64 percent of cases of Down syndrome in Europe are diagnosed in the prenatal period . "
Thus, when a child is born, the "parents have no choice but to leave the child" — they write.
"Raising such a child may be too heavy a burden for the family and for society, despite the fact that the state provides care cost."
However, they do not claim that the killing of babies one more permissible than others — their basic opinion is that from a moral point of view there is no difference with abortion, which have already been implemented.
They prefer the term "infanticide", the term "post-natal abortion" to "emphasize that the moral status of the murdered baby is comparable to the status of the embryo."
As Minerva and Dzhiubilini know Professor Julian Savulescu of Oxford.
Minerva was a research fellow at the Oxford Centre for Practical Ethics Cuehiro (who studied the work Idzutaro Suehiro and others whose positions are close Marxist understanding of the sociology of law — approx. Interpreter) as long as last June, she went to work in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.
Dzhiubilini, who was invited as a student at Cambridge University to give a talk titled "What is the problem of euthanasia?" in January at the Oxford Martin School (in Oxford Martin School Board there for future generations — approx. interpreter), where Professor Savulescu is also a director.
He visited Melbourne and Monash University City. Professor Savulescu also worked at these universities before moving to Oxford in 2002.
Defending the decision to publish this article in your blog British Medical Journal, Professor Savulescu said that arguments in favor of infanticide were "largely not new."
The fact that Minerva and Dzhiubilini to do is apply these arguments "in view of maternal and family interests."
Recognizing that many people do not agree with their arguments, he wrote: "The purpose of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present a single truth or promote what or moral views. The aim is to present sound arguments based on generally accepted opinions. "
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he added: "These" debates "were an example of" witch ethics "- a group of people know who is a witch, and strive to find and burn it. This is our one of the most dangerous human inclinations. This leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and fight for the idea, there is a desire to silence and, in extreme cases, kill, based on their own moral certainty. This is not the society in which we live. "
He said that the journal would consider publishing an article postulating that if there is no moral difference between abortion and infanticide, abortion, too, it should be outlawed.
Dr. Trevor Shtammers, director of the department of medical ethics at the University College of St. Mary, said: "If the mother strangles her baby blanket, we say" it does not matter, it may have another "- that we, perhaps, want to?"
"There is nothing new in the fact that these young colleagues presented. This is the idea behind that for a long time are the philosophers of ethics in the United States and Australia, and it is the inevitable end point at the end of a long journey."
Referring to the term "postnatal abortion", Dr Trevor Shtammers added: "It's just a verbal manipulation, it is not a philosophy. Now I might refer to abortion as prenatal infanticide."