Is ‘After-Birth Abortion’ the New ‘In’ Thing?
Regardless of which side of the abortion fence you’re on, it’s a heated topic.
Apparently, a couple of Australian ethicists actually don’t believe we’re killing enough babies though.
In a paper that was published in February’s Journal of Medical Ethics, these two so-called ‘ethicists’ (obviously we’re using that term loosely these days) argue that ‘after-birth abortion’ should be allowable.
Just in case you’re slow and didn’t catch that, after-birth abortion = infanticide. Infanticide = killing newborn babies. Killing newborn babies = murder.
I don’t care who you are, or how much of an ‘I should be allowed to do whatever I want with my body’ feminist you are.
After-birth abortion is not doing whatever you want with YOUR body, it’s killing a baby that’s capable of surviving on its own. Murder. Period.
If you’re not horrified, you should be.
How Are They Trying to Justify After-Birth Abortion?
According to them, a newborn baby cannot be considered a person.
They believe that after-birth abortion should be acceptable if having a baby would negatively impact the family financially, psychologically, or socially.
So basically, if someone gets pregnant because they were too irresponsible to use birth control, and having that baby would ruin their social life, killing it after it’s born should be permissible.
Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. 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.
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.
The Webster’s Online Dictionary defines ethicist as “one whose judgement on ethics and ethical codes has come to be trusted by some community, and (importantly) is expressed in some way that makes it possible for others to mimic or approximate that judgement.”
If these are the type of people we’re taking ethical lessons from, there is no hope for this evil world.
Written By Melissa S. | Friend Melissa on Facebook | Join The Forum