Musings of art, truths and subsistence living
A medical journal has called for the acceptance of ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn baby), causing outrage among pro-life campaigners and raising an array of ethical questions.
Authors from the Journal of Medical Ethics, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue that foetuses and newborns “do not have the same moral status as actual persons”. They say that killing a newborn baby should be “permissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”. They add that “the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant”.
The ancient Romans used to expose unwanted babies on hillsides. Thankfully, we have come a long way since those bad old days. We would never countenance letting a baby die of exposure or get eaten by animals. No, today’s infanticide promoters insist that babies be killed painlessly. After all, we aren’t barbarians!
Infanticide? Today? In fact, although technically illegal, baby killing already is being carried out in the Netherlands as a logical extension of that country’s euthanasia license. A bureaucratic check list has even been published — including in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine — known as the Groningen Protocol, by which Dutch neonatologists determine which sick and disabled babies qualify to be euthanized. Indeed, according to two articles published in The Lancet, about 8% of all babies who die each year in the Netherlands (80-90) are killed by their own doctors.
But now, some advocates want to take the infanticide license beyond unhealthy and disabled babies, to include unwanted babies. Expanding the killing license. To get around objections, cross the t’s and dot the i’s, the authors sophisticatedly expand on the concept, and they write that an infant, by definition, has not yet developed desires or goals. In other words, babies are not people.
This is the new bioethical order, where each must earn full moral status by currently possessing capacities sufficient to be deemed a “person.” As the authors of “After-Birth Abortion” put it, “We take ‘person’ to mean an individual [not just a human] who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” In other words, if you can’t value your own life, your life has less value.
Given that the Netherlands and Belgium are the two most ethically liberal countries in the Western world with gay marriage being legal, but laws allowing for infanticide? This is just appalling.