- Created on Tuesday, 06 March 2012 14:10
The culture of death is again attempting to rationalize infanticide with a kinder, gentler euphemism they call “after-birth abortions.” The central tenet of this latest approach revolves around the relativist argument that if a child can be killed in the mother’s womb for reasons of convenience, then why not murder the child after it is born with the same rationale?
Two university students in Australia, Alberto Giubilini who attends Monash University in Melbourne, and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne, have written an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics titled “After-birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” The abstract reads: “Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that 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.”
Sadly, the Journal of Medical Ethics issued an unethical defense of this article by stating their purpose is not to present the truth, only well-reasoned arguments. “Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well-reasoned arguments based on widely accepted premises. The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises, which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject.”
If a journal’s purpose is not to present the truth and promote the correct moral view, exactly what is the purpose of any communication? Perhaps the Journal of Medical Ethics has not heard of the eighth commandment. It does not seem the Journal has heard of ethics for that matter which is by definition that branch of philosophy dealing with the rightness and wrongness of certain actions. Giubilini’s and Minerva’s construct is only “well-reasoned” if one accepts the poorly-reasoned arguments made to justify abortion, and conveniently, they seemed to have skipped over those in their haste to justify the murder of newborns for the sake of convenience. If one first accepts abortion, then to murder the child after it is born or even euthanize any one who is deemed non-productive or a burden to society should be permissible.
To comprehend the essence of this entirely absurd discussion, it is only necessary to understand that the unjust killing of human life is a mortal sin and can never be justified. Attempting to discuss the moral status, personhood or viability of a zygote, embryo, fetus, child, adolescent or an adult are arguments that have absolutely no grounds in this debate. The right to life does not depend on any of these considerations. Life does not begin; it is transmitted and no one has the God-given right to life to interrupt its development. Attempting to prove scientifically when the soul is infused or if moral status exists in the womb is entirely irrelevant.
If the Federal Supreme Court ruled that it were permissible to kill one’s neighbor if they caused one inconvenience, no sane man would agree with this law, however, if it were passed, no doubt some people would practice it. After accepting the initial incomprehensible premise, then why not extend the legality of killing to anyone that causes anyone any inconvenience? Why not call for murder on demand?