Thursday, March 1, 2012

Worth Checking out: After-birth abortion- why should the baby live

In the, you should see this and shudder for where our society is going, is Joe Carter's 60 Second summary of an article entitled After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? It appease in theJournal of Medical Ethics, and was written by Australian philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesa Minerva. The source for this is the Gospel Coalition voices blog.
Here's the Gist: Since it is currently permissible to kill prenatal children because they are only potential persons and do not have full moral status, then we should be able to kill postnatal children for the same reason.
The Excerpt: 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.
The Bottom Line: As the authors note, an examination of 18 European registries found that between 2005 and 2009 only 64% of Down's syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing, leaving about 1,700 infants to be born with the condition. Since the mothers would have likely killed the child in utero, why should we not permit them to kill the child after the birth?
After summarizing the article, Carter observes,

Sadly, this is not a reductio ad absurdum intended to show the illogic of abortion but a serious philosophical argument made in defense of infanticide: ". . . we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be."
This article---which, it should be noted, was published in a respected journal---shows that once we discard the Christian principle of inherent dignity of humans, anything we decide to do to an infant becomes "ethically permissiable."
In some ways, carter concludes, this is nothing new, but what we see here is that the article is gaining traction in academic bioethics.

Here's my take after reading the summary and the whole article. This is is a pointer to where our western culture is headed. Life is becoming cheap. It wasn't till Christianity sprang up that the assertion that life had value became mainstream. The argument was, we are made in the image of God, therefore, life had value. However, once, you take out the foundation, we are made in the image of God, it's only a matter of time before life ceases to have value. First, abortion, but infanticide and euthanasia are right behind. God spare us.

No comments:

Post a Comment