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
Are you reading this?
Advertising on Stand Firm works!
Click here for details.