This is a little late to be totally topical, but I’ve been off the blog for a while (Doctor’s orders!)
I saw this back in March on Al Mohler’s blog where two Academics (give me strength!) argue for the validity of what we would term ‘murder’ or at the very least ‘infanticide’, but they prefer to term ‘after-birth abortion’. Already they’re in trouble by using an oxymoron as the preferred terminology for their proposal, because the meaning of ‘abortion’ is that the pregnancy is terminated so that birth never takes place. Go figure!
Published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Professors Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne and Oxford University argue that:
“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual 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.”
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.
The authors therefore concluded 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”.
They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.”
They also argue that
newborn human infants lack the ability to anticipate the future, and thus that after-birth abortions should be permitted.
By my estimation, if we used that criterion to make this kind of judgement, about 40% of the population is at risk!
In an age where we know more now than ever about the function and complexity of the human body, selfish ideologies are still prevalent and set to skew the moral compass of society even further.
At one time, the thought of killing new born children would be reserved for the pagan, the barbaric, the cruel and the evil – The Hitler’s, Pol Pot’s and the Ghengis Khan’s of society .
Today it is entertained by scholars in the Journal of Medical Ethics as an idea to contemplate.
If ever a nation needed God, it is now.