March 24, 2017

February 29, 2012

Medical Ethicists Argue for Killing Inconvenient Babies as “After Birth Abortion”

The Blaze spotlights an article in the latest Journal of Medical Ethics by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva in which they argue that killing newborns should be acceptable practice when the impact of the baby’s life on its family is deemed… I’m not sure which word to use here… “unacceptable?” No, there’s no such definitive adjective offered here. “Inconvenient” is as accurate as I think it gets. Giubilini and Minerva are arguing for - and they make no pretense otherwise - for killing babies when their existence inconveniences the family, or when the cost of providing care for them would be “excessive”:

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

Ponder that last sentence for a moment, because if there were ever a line of “reasoning” that better illustrates the evil of abortion in general, and the evil of the state forcing its citizens to pay for it, and the insidious potential of government-mandated health insurance, I haven’t seen it.

What Giubilini and Minerva are saying is that, when the state pays for health care, the state gets to determine who lives and dies - not by rationing medication and procedures for end-of-life care, but literally by executing newborn babies.

Matthew Archibald at the National Catholic Register actually agrees with them on a key point - and I agree with Archibald:

Here’s the thing - they’re right. If you accept their premises, they’re absolutely right.

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

An ethicist’s job is like a magician’s. The main job of both is to distract you from the obvious. The magician uses sleight of hand to pretend to make people disappear. But when ethicists do it, people disappear for real.

It’s almost a pro-life argument in that it highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument.

These two “ethicists” seem to draw the distinction I’ve seen elsewhere of “self awareness.” But isn’t that a sliding scale? Isn’t that a bit of a judgement call? Doesn’t this also put the crosshairs on the mentally disabled or those who have suffered brain injuries?

They throw around this term “potential person” like it’s a real thing. As if it’s science. But there’s no such thing as potential persons. It’s anti-science. There’s defenseless people. Maybe that’s what they mean. In fact, isn’t that really the point. There’s defenseless people and indefensible ethicists.

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



It’s not a laughing matter but I couldn’t help but chuckle over the term “after-birth abortion.”

Goodness, Greg—you’re just continuing the “War On Women” that Kaeton rattles on about with your being opposed to such “after-birth abortions.”

You, you . . . you patriarchal man, you!!!!!


[1] Posted by Sarah on 2-29-2012 at 10:50 AM · [top]

This is the inevitable outgrowth of the abortion-on-demand mentlity. It’s a logical progression. It’s also frighteningly evil. (By the way, note the names of the “ethicists.” They appear to be Italian, which is interesting. Presumably they came from a Catholic culture.)

[2] Posted by Nellie on 2-29-2012 at 10:50 AM · [top]

The editor’s defense of the article is even more repugnant.

[3] Posted by Jagged Edge on 2-29-2012 at 11:32 AM · [top]

It’s had to believe that the world was once horrified by this same reasoning when the Germans used it to justify their euthanasia programs, but the killing of Jews and others.  It wasn’t murder because murder is the unlawful killing of a human being.  The Jews weren’t human and the killing was lawful.  Sort of like late term after-birth abortions.  That has a nice ring to it:  The Auschwitz Late Term After-birth Clinic and Cleansing Center.

We should be vary scared because over the last 50 years we have seen equally repugnant ideas become mainstream.

[4] Posted by Br. Michael on 2-29-2012 at 11:46 AM · [top]

The editor claims that,

“The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view,” he writes. “It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.

That is not medical ethics, that is something else as evidenced by the horrible conclusions drawn by the authors.

[5] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 2-29-2012 at 11:50 AM · [top]

Did you catch this genuflection to Gaia?

“A consequence of this position is that the interests of actual people over-ride the interest of merely potential people to become actual ones. This does not mean that the interests of actual people always over-ride any right of future generations, as we should certainly consider the well-being of people who will inhabit the planet in the future.”

They’re killing the children for the children.  Bustards.

[6] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 2-29-2012 at 11:54 AM · [top]

Missed that one! That’s sort of like Obama saying he wants his daughters to have the choice to kill his unborn grandchildren. Of course, he didn’t use those words, but that’s what, in effect, he meant. These people are bizarre - chillingly bizarre!

[7] Posted by Nellie on 2-29-2012 at 12:05 PM · [top]

So, who wants an “Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Obama” bumper sticker for their Chevy Volt.

[8] Posted by Daniel on 2-29-2012 at 12:51 PM · [top]

This is an inevitable development.  Everyone knows that the boundary of birth is arbitrary.  None of the arguments used to justify abortion depend upon some ontological change that occurs at birth.  They are all -ALL - predicated upon the assumption of the mother’s autonomy.  Birth was simply a convenient point at which the mother could be assumed to have voluntarily acquired the obligations of parenthood.  But there was never anything magical or necessary about that boundary.  It can easily be moved without affecting any argument used to uphold abortion.  And so dawns the age of Lebensunwertes Leben.  Truly there is nothing new under the sun.


[9] Posted by carl on 2-29-2012 at 01:06 PM · [top]

The amazing thing is that these guys are absolutely right in their premise that infancide/“after birth abortion” is no different than abortion. 

The other amazing thing is how incredibly morally bankrupt these folks are.  I wouldn’t want them as my neighbor, cube-mate or anything else.  I wouldn’t trust them for one second with any of my children or things.

I’m going to go wash my hands now…

[10] Posted by B. Hunter on 2-29-2012 at 01:48 PM · [top]

I grew up thinking that it was the Allies that won that little dust-up in Europe, 1939-1945.  I was apparently mistaken.

[11] Posted by Jeffersonian on 2-29-2012 at 02:21 PM · [top]

It’s still murder any way you look at it.

[12] Posted by cennydd13 on 2-29-2012 at 02:58 PM · [top]

Murder is murder.

[13] Posted by ammakate on 2-29-2012 at 03:50 PM · [top]

Well, as a proud American I will tell you I am so ashamed that our great nation has willfully killed 50 million innocent babies in the name of “convenience”.  I pray God’s mercy on our country, that we will seek God’s face so he will heal our land.

[14] Posted by B. Hunter on 2-29-2012 at 03:51 PM · [top]

Scott Klusendorf argues against abortion using the acronym SLED: Size, Level of development, Environment, Degree of dependency. He says none of these factors allows us to murder people in any other context. They are the only factors in play with abortion, therefore they should not permit us to murder people via abortion.

But by this latest reasoning, he’ll have to change his acronym to SL. Presumably they are rationalizing this according to the size or level of development of the person and the other two are no longer important.

Editor Julian Savulescu also criticizes what he calls the “hate speech” directed at the authors of the article, arguing that the public’s response to the piece shows that “proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

uh… ummm… I’m speechless. What can one say to that?

[15] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 2-29-2012 at 04:07 PM · [top]

What can one say to that?

You’re not supposed to say anything, that’s the point.  Invoking the “H-word” is meant to cut off all discussion and/or criticism.  Never mind that this is the revival of the Nazi Aktion T4 program all over again…it’s just bad manners to point it out.

[16] Posted by Jeffersonian on 2-29-2012 at 04:13 PM · [top]

Isn’t it fascinating how the most brutal kind of murder can be justified if you use the appropriate euphemisms.

The sin of abortions in this country is no less than the sin of slavery.  Where are the modern abolitionists?  Where is the modern army that liberated the death camps?  Where is the Oscar Schindler of the abortion mills?

[17] Posted by Br. Michael on 2-29-2012 at 05:41 PM · [top]

Not only that, Br. Michael, but the scanadl that such writings are to be found in a “Journal of Medical Ethics.”  It’s like finding a recipe for Bald Eagle Frittata in a Greenpeace magazine.

[18] Posted by Jeffersonian on 2-29-2012 at 06:06 PM · [top]

There is NEVER any justification for taking a human infant’s life at any time during gestation except when the life of the mother is determined by competent medical authority to be in danger, and to take the life of infants following their birth for the convenience of society is called genocide….a crime against humanity, which, following the Nuremberg Tribunal of 1946 was punishable by death.  Society has gotten away from that, but still should impose a penalty upon those who would encourage such a crime.

[19] Posted by cennydd13 on 2-29-2012 at 07:05 PM · [top]

Minerva:  the virgin goddess of poetry, medicine, wisdom, commerce, weaving, crafts, magic. (per Wikipedia)

what a name this woman has.

They don’t acknowledge any history of women who have had abortions going through the horrendous loss felt by women who suffer miscarriage or stillbirth. Some grieve.  Some families are delighted by their children who have birth defects…... 
Lord, have mercy!

[20] Posted by maineiac on 2-29-2012 at 09:12 PM · [top]

The Nazis practiced on the infirm, disabled and helpless to fine tune mass killing.

[21] Posted by Judith L on 2-29-2012 at 09:30 PM · [top]

I think that the best descriptive of the problem faced by parents who want to get “rid” of said problem is that the situation had become TOO LOUD.

[22] Posted by JuliaMarks on 2-29-2012 at 10:25 PM · [top]

On a much more serious note, how can people who claim to believe in evolution turn around and defend genetic engineering?  Just who is in charge here of making sure only the fittest survive, man or nature?

[23] Posted by JuliaMarks on 2-29-2012 at 10:40 PM · [top]


Thank you for bringing these articles to our attention. The only way to deal with people like this is to expose their beliefs for all to see.

There is a brilliant scene in Sam Peckinpah’s WWII movie ‘Cross of Iron’ where one German soldier in Russia says to his corporal “What are we doing here?” Cpl Steiner responds by quoting Friedrich von Bernhardi: “We are spreading the German culture throughout a desperate world”. But Bernhardi wrote before the Nazis existed. So Peckinpah’s point is that the atrocities of Nazism had their foundation in beliefs and doctrines that existed before Nazism.

The Nazis propogated euthenasia of unwanted children, the intellectually or physically retarded, the ‘deviant’ and the infirm. Its easy to see how teachings like those of Doctors Giubilini and Minerva can lay the foundation for a new Nazism.

[24] Posted by MichaelA on 3-1-2012 at 12:22 AM · [top]

A natural, (albeit thoroughly evil) logical progression for the cult of death on demand.  I don’t want to hyperspiritualize this, but it would seem that moloch worship is alive and well as some folk seek new and more horrorific ways to allow their offspring to “pass through the fire”.

[25] Posted by aterry on 3-1-2012 at 11:18 AM · [top]

“The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.””

A classic.  When I was growing up, DS kids were treated as little more than vegetables.  Now many of them lead very productive lives and are sought-after employees.  I wonder if these pathetic excuses for scientists could look a DS kid in the face and schedule him/her for termination?

The answer probably is ... yes. Mengele could do it, and I am sure his modern disciples could do the same.

[26] Posted by MichaelA on 4-15-2012 at 10:50 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.