Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.yes... we used to call those people Nazi's... ever visit the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C.?
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.which "properties" are these?... supposedly, they can't ascribe a "basic value" to their own life, therefore cannot be a "loss" should that life be deprived... i believe that even a fetus recognizes a "basic value", or why else would there be a pain response?
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.so, what are they saying?... we can ascribe rights as we see fit?... well, what if i say we grant personhood at age 18?... can i abort my teenager?
"I brought you into this world; I can take you out!"
However, whereas you can benefit someone by bringing her into existence (if her life is worth living), it makes no sense to say that someone is harmed by being prevented from becoming an actual person. The reason is that, by virtue of our definition of the concept of ‘harm’ in the previous section, in order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm.nice trick, that... redefine the term harm into something that agrees with your argument... how many times have we seen this tactic?
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.so... if, as a parent, my child becomes a burden (or a punishment, as President Obama calls them), such that i believe the social, psychological, or economic cost is too great, then i have the right to dispose of them?... this will change my kid's Christmas lists, dramatically!
to all the Pro-Choice people... is this what you wanted?... because this is the natural course for the ethics you support... if such a basic right as life can be granted on such a subjective basis, what right do you have to say someone can't abort a child when it becomes a burden to the parent?
follow this thought down the rabbit-hole, and humans only have the right to life as those around them see fit... cancer patients are a burden to healthcare... elderly have outlived their useful life... children are not persons, but property... the mentally retarded have less rights than "normal" people... if someone is in an accident and gets brain damaged, should we just kill them outright before they inconvenience anyone?
how far do you let this go?
source:
Australian Ethicists Argue the Right to Kill Babies After They’re Born - Liberty Counsel March 2, 2012
JME Online First, published on March 2, 2012 as 10.1136/medethics-2011-100411