Skip to comments.Lefty Ethicists: Hey, What's So Bad About Fourth Trimester Abortions?
Posted on 03/16/2012 2:32:53 AM PDT by Kaslin
Yes, you read that right -- fourth trimester abortions. Outrage over the recent publication of this "ethics" report bubbled up when it was first published several weeks ago, but a piece entitled "Declaring War on Newborns" in the upcoming edition of The Weekly Standard ought to touch off a new round of calumny and horror. Truly appalling:
Last month...a pair of medical ethicists took to their profession’s bible, the Journal of Medical Ethics, and published an essay with a misleadingly inconclusive title: “After-birth Abortion: Why should the baby live?” It was a misleading title because the authors believe the answer to the question is: “Beats me.” Right at the top, the ethicists summarized the point of their article. “What we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
The argument made by the authors?—?Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, both of them affliliated with prestigious universities in Australia and ethicists of pristine reputation?—?runs as follows. Let’s suppose a woman gets pregnant. She decides to go ahead and have the baby on the assumption that her personal circumstances, and her views on such things as baby-raising, will remain the same through the day she gives birth and beyond. Then she gives birth. Perhaps the baby is disabled or suffers a disease. Perhaps her boyfriend or (if she’s old-fashioned) her husband abandons her, leaving her in financial peril. Or perhaps she’s decided that she’s just not the mothering kind, for, as the authors write, “having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children, regardless of the condition of the fetus.”
The authors point out that each of these conditions?—?the baby is sick or suffering, the baby will be a financial hardship, the baby will be personally troublesome??—??is now “largely accepted” as a good reason for a mother to abort her baby before he’s born. So why not after? “When circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.” (Their italics.) Western societies approve abortion because they have reached a consensus that a fetus is not a person; they should acknowledge that by the same definition a newborn isn’t a person either. Neither fetus nor baby has developed a sufficient sense of his own life to know what it would be like to be deprived of it. The kid will never know the difference, in other words. A newborn baby is just a fetus who’s hung around a bit too long.
The authors also argue that some animals are more entitled to "human rights" than born human babies, and that post-birth abortion is likely preferable to adoption for some mothers because of its "irreversibility." Putting a child up for adoption might cause a woman "psychological distress," they write. This ghoulish thought experiment carries the "choice" argument to its logical, albeit extreme, end. If a child's disability or deformity is an acceptable justification for her pre-birth slaughter, why not a few hours (or days) after she exits the womb? If the inconvenience or financial hardship inflicted by having a child is seen as a sufficient reason to end the life of a child in utero, why not postpartum? One of the core tenants of modern liberalism is unwavering support for abortion on demand. The argument goes that a fetus is not a human life, or at least not quite a "full" human life, so he or she does not merit legal protection. Mssrs. Giubilini and Minerva merely reinterpret the definition of worthy human life, using the same arguments that abortion proponents employ to rationalize and excuse the practice. That's ridiculous, many pro-choicers will protest, birth is clearly a bright line that everyone agrees on and is reasonably seen as the dividing line between a sanctioned killing and a felony. But isn't that "bright line" just a societal construct? Who's to say that it's correct, fair, or just? And isn't permitting legalized abortion while strictly outlawing infanticide yet another dreaded example of one group "imposing morality" on another?
These questions help demonstrate why the Left's "imposing values" complaint is one of its laziest intellectual arguments. Virtually every single law in existence represents some form of imposed values. For instance, liberals at every level of government have no qualms about telling Americans what foods we can't eat, what light-bulbs we can't purchase, what types of cars must be sold, what guns we can't own, what healthcare we must obtain, and what forms of birth control we must subsidize for other people. Each and every one of those actions represents ideological and moral enforcement via government. But when pro-lifers advocate that our laws should protect unborn children against capricious execution, they're furiously denounced by the pro-abortion movement as moralizing meddlers. Will these same advocates impose their values on supporters of Giubilini and Minerva's ethical worldview, or will they wage a "war" against women who seek post-birth "choice"?
And yes, I again use the term "pro-abortion" intentionally. As I discussed a few weeks ago during the surreal public debate over Virginia's innocuous and reasonable ultrasound law, there are some who are passionately committed to abortion itself, not just the euphemistic "choice." The Left indignantly insists that such people do not exist, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is a demagogue. Perhaps they should pay more attention to the very public opinions of individuals like "reproductive & sexual health and justice" writer, Jessica DelBalzo:
I love abortion. I don't accept it. I don't view it as a necessary evil. I embrace it. I donate to abortion funds. I write about how important it is to make sure that every woman has access to safe, legal abortion services. I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for reproductive freedom. I love abortion. And I bristle every time a fellow activist uses a trendy catch-phrase or rallying cry meant to placate pro-lifers. The first of these, “Make abortion safe, legal, and rare!” has been used for decades as a call for abortion rights. Safe and legal are concepts I fully support, but rare is something I cannot abide...
Suggesting that abortion be “safe, legal, and rare,” and crowing that “no one likes abortion,” accomplishes nothing for women's rights. Pandering to the anti-choice movement by implying that we all find termination distasteful only fuels the fire against it. What good is common ground if it must be achieved at the expense of women who have had or will have abortions? Those women need advocates like us more than we need support from anti-abortionists. Rather than trying to cozy up to the forced-birth camp, women who value their freedom should be proud to say that they like abortion. In fact, they should venerate it whole-heartedly. Abortion is our last refuge, the one final, definitive instrument that secures our bodily autonomy. What's not to love?
Note the supportive comments ("preach!") below the original piece. I wonder how Ms. DelBlazo feels about the ethics of post-birth abortion. Sure, women would suffer through a full pregnancy, but at least they'd be able to dispose of children they don't really want. "What's not to love?"
UPDATE - This occasions a reminder of Barack Obama's efforts to block and defeat anti-infanticide laws in Illinois, and his subsequent dishonest cover-up of his actions.
Josef Mengele ethics. Coming soon w/Obamacare.
Next step: murdering people who have the wrong political opinions.
The Breibarting has begun.
Using simple logic, abortions should then be legal until the fetus is eighteen years of age.
Makes sense. For the children...
These people need to set an example. Self abortion. It’s the only way to make others kill...
Bump for later read. Blood pressure too high after reading the first half!
If only Obama’s slut mother had thought this way.
Call it infanticide. Or prenatal infanticide, if the victim was not yet born.
This logic justifies killing anyone whom someone stronger wants dead. I like it - they’ve revealed “pro-choice” for what it really is.
Or the wrong religion, or the wrong parentage.
Or for that matter postpubertal abortions?
(Actually there's something to be said for postpubertal ones.)
(What am I saying??? The utterly immoral, depraved, decadent, brainless, indecent Leftists will take this as a serious suggestion!!!)
Do the math... $1 a month from each worker in any substantial American population pool is enough to abort ever pregnancy.
I know a few pro-aborts that simply bristle at the equating of abortion with killing newborns...
but I’m certain they’d not stop supporting democRats if they started to openly advocate the “ethics” of killing babies in the first 3 months of life.
Abortion has, inevitably, led us to infanticide and euthanasia. I really don't want know where it is going to from there.
The Sexual Revolution led to the destruction of the family and marriage, overwhelming illegitimacy, gay "rights," and gay “marriage.” It will inevitably take us down the road to polygamy, pedophilia, and other perversions.
I wish I could find the brake on this thing.
This is just part of the liberal mindset. I have noticed that liberals are just control-freaks gone wild. No limits. When they attempt to intellectually explain and justify their control-freakism, they expose themselves.
The next step is killing old farts, the retarded, and other disabled people. Euthanasia, you see.
THEN they start killing people for having the wrong political opinions.
That is an irrational position. The only rational view is that "killing is killing," and the only consistent criterion is "Who can, may."
They’re trying to thread the needle of “I’m a good person and support women’s rights but I’m not advocating murder.”
The ones that I have in mind would add - “I really didn’t commit murder... really, I didn’t”.
“Murder” is a legal descriptor. It’s not murder if you kill someone runs in front of you on the interstate. “Infanticide” is the legally neutral term for killing an infant, and I think it’s the most useful term for the purpose.
I think we should try to get away from the idea of “ ... a good person (except for ...),” because if we’re honest, very few of us are what we would describe as “a good person” if we were talking about someone other than ourselves. As Jesus said, “There is One who is good,” or “No one is good but God alone.”
I totally agree with your last paragraph,
but these are leftists we are talking about.
This in itself is THE assumption that divides the left/liberal and the Christian/conservative.
Who is Man? Fallen or basically good?
From this dichotomy of assumptions, all other ideological conclusions result.
IE, leftists believe they ARE “good people except for (x)”.
It’s a lie way back from Genesis 3.
Yes, and it's interesting that, in many cases, you'd get a blank stare if you asked one, "What do you do, specifically, that is good?" They're "good" simply in their existence, and particularly in their "right thoughts," rather than in good acts they do or bad acts they avoid.
How many conservatives murder their babies?
If infanticide is a legally neutral term then we are in deep trouble. From Webster's 1828 dictionary:
INFANT'ICIDE, n. [Low L. infanticidium; infans, an infant, and coedo, to kill.]
infanticide is universally, viscerally understood to be evil.
This is why “I’m a good person” abortion supporting libs recoil from the equating of abortion with infanticide.
Exactly. It means "deliberately killing an infant," and that is the topic here. "Post-birth abortion" is an absurd phrase. It is intended to carry the social approval of "abortion" (prenatal infanticide) over to additional killing.