Posted on 03/06/2012 4:14:48 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
The debate over abortion comes down to one essential issue — the moral status of the unborn child. Those making the case for the legalization of abortion argue that the developing fetus lacks a moral status that would trump a woman’s desire to abort the child. Those arguing against abortion do so by making the opposite claim; that the unborn child, precisely because it is a developing human being, possesses a moral status by the very fact of its human existence that would clearly trump any rationale offered for its willful destruction.
This central issue is often obscured in both public argument and private conversations about abortion, but it remains the essential question. We have laws against homicide, and if the unborn child is recognized legally and morally as a human being, abortion would be rightly seen as murder.
In the main, abortion rights advocates have drawn the moral line at the moment of birth. That is why, even with our contemporary knowledge of the developing fetus, abortion rights activists have persistently argued in favor of abortions right up to the moment of birth. Anyone doubting this claim needs only to consider the unified opposition of leading abortion rights advocates to restrictions on late-term abortions.
From the beginning of the controversy over abortion, this supposedly bright line of the moment of birth has been unstable. Abortion rights activists have even opposed efforts to restrict the gruesome reality known as partial-birth abortions. The moment of birth has never been the bright line of safety that the defenders of abortion have claimed.
Now, an even more chilling development comes in the form of an article just published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Professors Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne and Oxford University, now argue for the morality and legalization of “after-birth abortion.”
These authors do not hide their agenda. They are calling for the legal killing of newborn children.
The argument put forth in their article bears a haunting resemblance to the proposal advocated by Dr. Peter Singer of Princeton University, who has argued that the killing of a newborn baby, known as infanticide, should be allowable up to the point that the child develops some ability to communicate and to anticipate the future.
Giubilini and Minerva now argue that newborn human infants lack the ability to anticipate the future, and thus that after-birth abortions should be permitted.
The authors explain that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion” to “infanticide” because their term makes clear the fact that the argument comes down to the fact that the birth of the child is not morally significant.
They propose two justifying arguments:
First: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.”
Second: “It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to be a person in the morally relevant sense.”
Thus: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack the properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Those assertions are as chilling as anything yet to appear in the academic literature of medical ethics. This is a straightforward argument for the permissibility of murdering newborn human infants. The authors make their argument with the full intention of seeing this transformed into public policy. Further, they go on to demonstrate the undiluted evil of their proposal by refusing even to set an upper limit on the permissible age of a child to be killed by “after-birth abortion.”
These “medical ethicists” argue that a traditional abortion is a preferred option, but then state:
“Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social, or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.”
Nothing could possibly justify the killing of a child, but these professors are so bold as to argue that even “economical, social, or psychological circumstances” would be sufficient justification.
This article in the Journal of Medical Ethics is a clear signal of just how much ground has been lost to the Culture of Death. A culture that grows accustomed to death in the womb will soon contemplate killing in the nursery. The very fact that this article was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal is an indication of the peril we face.
For years now, pro-life activists have been lectured that “slippery slope” arguments are false. This article makes clear the fact that our warnings have not been based in a slippery slope argument, but in the very reality of abortion. Abortion implies infanticide. If the unborn child lacks sufficient moral status by the fact that it is unborn, then the baby in the nursery, it is now argued, has also not yet developed human personhood.
The publication of this article signals the fact that a medical debate on this question has been ongoing. The only sane response to this argument is the affirmation of the objective moral status of the human being at every point of development, from fertilization until natural death. Anything less than the affirmation of full humanity puts every single human being at risk of being designated as not “a person in the morally relevant sense.”
Something very deadly this way comes. This argument will not remain limited to the pages of an academic journal. The murderous appetite of the Culture of Death will never be satisfied.
Sickening, but also sadly predictable.
Satan’s power over this planet is growing by leaps and bounds.
There is only one word for this: MURDER
Professors Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne and Oxford University, now argue for the morality and legalization of “after-birth abortion.”
I suggest that these 2 be the test case. Then anyone else who agrees with them can be next.
That “Journal of Medical Ethics” is an abomination to medical ethics.
Killing innocent babies is not a topic that would appear in any legitimate publication.
Hideous, yes: but not surprising. Terri Schiavo, age 41, was “aborted” 7 years ago for exactly the same reason: powerful parties, not acting to protect her as a fellow human being, decided she lacked the criteria for “moral” or “psychological” or “legal” “personhood”.
And here I thought it was possessing a human life that justifies the attribution.
The U.S. tries to save all babies born alive unless at the hands of an abortionist.
I’m wondering by what means these so-called “ethicists” would put to death these newborns. Would it be suffocation, strangulation? Perhaps a bullet to the head? Baseball bat? Just what would be the modern “ethical” way to extinguish the life of a newborn? (May these so-called “ethicists” roast in Hell.)
This is frightening and so evil.
“medical ethicist” or more accurately ... Death Panels!
It's not an approved method for the humane execution of convicted criminals sentenced to death for heinous crimes, but it IS the approved method for the execution of physically disabled adults.
Just don't neglect to feed or water an animal.That will get you jail time.
I doubt Terri Schiavo is laughing.
I know her family and friends aren't.
Any chance a few old timers around here who openly lusted for the “right to die” will zot themselves?
Nah, I didn't think so..... Because they are so very, very really intelligent, and obviously there are no connections at all between a helpless human infant and a helpless disabled human adult.
Since liberalism is not economically sustainable due to their spending habits, and liberals are annoying burdens on the rest of society that give everyone who has to deal with their nonsense intense headaches... perhaps they should consider the posibility that under their own arguments it would be justifiable to abort them.
“We have laws against homicide, and if the unborn child is recognized legally and morally as a human being, abortion would be rightly seen as murder.”
Then it is murder. The law considers it murder if a third party kills a child in the womb without the mother’s blessing. Therefore, the law recognizes the unborn child as a legal human being.
The law twists itself into an immoral and illogical pretzel to say that if in the mind of one of the co-conspirators the human child is undesirable, then it is not murder. This, and euthanasia are the only instance in law that I can think of where the desire of one the conspirators to kill the victim makes murder a legal option.
You are exactly right and there are other instances in which the law talks out of both sides of its mouth at the same time. I have never understood the laws on murder, if you kill a person accidentally, by automobile, by letting a fire get out of hand, etc. you may be charged with negligent homicide but you cannot be charged with first degree murder. In this case intent is what matters, result is the same. On the other hand if you shoot at someone and only wound them you can be charged with attempted murder only which carries a much lesser penalty than if you kill them. In this case results are what matter, the intent is the same. I have always said that the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for successful murder.
Wow this truly disgusts me and I would say more but it would take five years to read everything that I have to say.
Well, it seems that my part time job may have come to an end so I have some time, feel free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.