Ethicists who wrote paper saying abortion was no different to killing a newborn say sorry
It created a media storm that few were prepared for. Australian academics Alberto Giubilini, from Monash University, and Francesca Minerva, from the University of Melbourne, wrote a foetus and a newborn are equivalent in their lack of a sense of their own life and aspiration and therefore killing them would be the same as abortion. The pair were published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, adding to the philosophical debate. In their apology on the British Medical Journal blog, they wrote:
“We are really sorry that many people, who do not share the background of the intended audience for this article, felt offended, outraged, or even threatened. We apologise to them, but we could not control how the message was promulgated across the internet and then conveyed by the media. In fact, we personally do not agree with much of what the media suggest we think.
We did not recommend or suggest anything in the paper about what people should do (or about what policies should allow).
If we wanted to suggest something about policy, we would have written, for example, a comment related the Groningen Protocol (in the Netherlands), which is a guideline that permits killing newborns under certain circumstances (e.g. when the newborn is affected by serious diseases). But we do not discuss guidelines in the paper. Rather we acknowledged the fact that such a protocol exists and this is a good reason to discuss the topic (and probably also for publishing papers on this topic).”
Top Comments
I feel bad for the academics. I read their paper and it does pose some very important moral questions, but the fact is that these questions aren't new by any stretch of the imagination. They were just jumped on by ignorant mob-happy idiots..
Witch hunts suck. Especially when they involve such pathetic anti-intellectualism.
Bob Katter is a massive nut job o_O