‘Bioethicist’ Argues for Infanticide Since It’s the Parents’ DNA


A Finnish bioethicist Joona argues for the potential justification of Infanticide and claims his pro-life critics can’t make a convincing argument against parents killing infants. Older children are different, he says.

, a Professor at the University of Oslo, called for the possibility of what has been referred to as after-birth abortion in the medical journal Bioethics. While not saying it should be legal, he makes the case for the morality of it. He seems to be looking for a convincing argument other than we shouldn’t kill people. He writes:

[T]here might be an argument that gives, for example, the genetic parents a right to kill (or leave to die) their newborn infant even if the infant has a right to life. For example, it might be argued that people have a right to their genetic privacy and having the newborn infant in the world that carries the genetic material of the genetic parents violates their right to genetic privacy. Put another way: the fetus does not have a right to the genetic material of her parents.

Joona’s argument for keeping older children alive is they have been alive longer. Therefore, they have “a strong time‐relative interest to continue living.”

According to this man of ‘ethics’, “Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.”

He talks about fetuses not being able to value life. A standard human fetus (or an infant) cannot value continuing of his life. Therefore killing it does not violate its flourishing. It only violates its future possible flourishing.

Dr. Michael Cook of Mercatornet.com writes about the danger this type of “musing” can present:

The hoi polloi often have a keener sense of the implications of theoretical musings than academics do. They know that today’s article could become tomorrow’s legislation. “After-birth abortion” is already a reality in Belgium and the Netherlands (although it is called pediatric euthanasia). Many people may feel that constructing a theoretical scaffolding for legalizing it elsewhere is terribly dangerous.

Several of these so-called bioethicists and other scholars have argued for Infanticide for several years, including Christopher Kaczor and Peter Singer at Princeton.

The people who support killing babies are often the same people who don’t believe in the death penalty. They are usually the same people who won’t touch the hair on an animal’s head. Abortion isn’t enough for these types It will never be enough. They are very strange indeed.

Maybe his parents didn’t do that to him when he was about two months old.

Even for people who don’t believe in God, the Ten Commandments always seemed to be inviolate rules. “Thou shalt not kill” is pretty standard.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
5 years ago

Just because a person is a professor does not mean that person is smart. That person only knows how to twist morality to suit his own agenda. Really … these guys get paid for this “intellectual” garbage?