In 2011, a prestigious journal (The Journal of Medical Ethics) published a paper titled “After-birth Abortion: Why should the baby live“?, in which it is stated that a new-born baby has absolutely no right to life, and it’s abortion can be viewed as morally equivalent to any other abortion. This belief is so abhorrent that I cannot comment other than to show you what this article actually says. A Christian or a non-Christian should feel utterly sick after reading this publication in a JOURNAL ON MEDICAL ETHICS!
You can view the archived published story HERE in case it is deleted from the JME site
The paper was featured in Britain’s “The Telegraph” newspaper in an article titled “Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say”
The authors of the paper, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, argued:
“The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “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’.
They go on to “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.”
“…having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children, regardless of the condition of the fetus…”
“…Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living…”
Now, pay close attention to the following, which reveals the evilness of their viewpoints:
“…It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down’s syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’. But, in fact, people with Down’s syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.
Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion.
Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible…”
They further state: “Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
In defense of the above, they further state these two “facts”:
There are two reasons which, taken together, justify this claim:
1. The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a
fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a
morally relevant sense.
2. It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her
from developing the potentiality to become a person in
the morally relevant sense.
Now, let the authors show you just how science as god results in utterly insane doctrine:
“…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. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life...”
And finally, when you feel the revulsion can get no worse, read their argument that a healthy baby should be given up for adoption rather than being aborted from a family that may not want him/her:
“…the interests of the actual people involved matter, and among these interests, we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption. Birthmothers are often reported to experience serious psychological problems due to the inability to elaborate their loss and to cope with their grief. It is true that grief and sense of loss may accompany both abortion and after-birth abortion as well as adoption, but we cannot assume that for the birthmother the latter is the least traumatic…”
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. — Jeremiah 1:5
For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. — PSALM 139:13
And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: — Luke 1:41