Into the quagmire of modern secular society

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.

Go ahead, read that again. I’ll wait.

That texts is no joke, not even a very tasteless one. It is an abstract of a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. This is a serious proposal.

Newborns are somehow inferior to other human beings, the fact that they’ll grow into ‘normal’ people is irrelevant, and adoption is not always ideal, so it’s okay to murder a baby if we don like it.

Lord Alton, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group in the UK, has rightly said that this development, and the thought processes behind it, “illustrates not a slippery slope, but the quagmire into which medical ethics and our wider society have been sucked”.

A baby, not actually a human being, apparently.

The slippery slope that we are one, since we live in a society (especially here in the Netherlands) which allows the killing of children before birth, leads to a quagmire in which it is okay to kill a child at any age, since it is okay to do so until a random number of weeks after conception.

What will these lead to? From accepting killing the unborn, will we go to the killing of newborn, to the killing of anyone who is undesired?  What kind of sick situation are we in when it is even accepted to consider something like this? In the past, proponents of abortion hid behind the pretense that is was somehow for the best interest of the mother (and sometimes the child), but the authors of the paper linked above don’t even bother doing that. They essentially say that when a child is somehow undesired, or when raising him or her will somehow be difficult, due to whatever circumstances (not even necessarily related to  the health of the child), it should be allowed to murder it in cold blood.

Just exercising my right to kill, your honour. No big deal.

Make sure you also read ‘After-birth abortion’ is logically sound: that’s why it will boost the pro-life movement.

3 thoughts on “Into the quagmire of modern secular society”

  1. I read the KN-article yesterday and from that I concluded that this paper is not what it seems. The conclusion the writers come to is rediculous in an extent that even the ultra-liberal Singer-adepts in Groningen must feel some discomfort reading it. To quote the Journal’s editor – in a defense of publishing the paper:

    “The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands. (…) 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.”

    It is remarkable that the authors of the paper explicitely take the view that there is no real difference morally in an abortion and the killing of a newborn, while the pro-abortion movement have always argued that a foetus is not a living person, and thus that abortion is not murder. This standpoint – together with the euthanasia-practice in The Netherlands – has lead to the infamous ‘Groningen-protocol’.

    It seems to me that the authors are driving the standing Dutch practice ‘ad absurdum’ and so showing the moral deficit behinf this practice (to use an understatement).

  2. Having read the complete article I am confused: the authors seem serious, but I really can’t imagine anyone being serious about promoting the murdering of human beings.

    Let’s just pray that, whatever the real convictions of dr Giublini and dr Minerva are, the article will result in a reasonable discussion on the way we currently look at the value of human live. And that it will be a support for the pro-life movement.

    It is shocking that after the horrors of national-socialism such thoughts still exist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s