After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Journal Of Medical Ethics ^ | Nov 2011 | Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva

[robowombat]

J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411 Law, ethics and medicine Paper After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? Alberto Giubilini1,2, Francesca Minerva3,4 + Author Affiliations

1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy 2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 4Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.

Received 25 November 2011 Revised 26 January 2012 Accepted 27 January 2012 Published Online First 23 February 2012 Abstract 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.

[robowombat]

I first was going to post this in Religion. On second thought it appears to merit general consideration. This may not yet be mainstream but the implications are right there as to where this will go. Read the full text. It is clearly written. Then reread it and ponder what the implications of the authors' position are.

[TruthInThoughtWordAndDeed]

Pure unadulterated evil.

Either we are living in the last days, or God owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.

I vote “last days.”

[Secret Agent Man]

“why should the baby live”

And this is what post-Christian, post-modern thought has devolved into. Welcome to the slime under the bottom of the barrel.

This really is “why should anyone live” if others think there’s no benefit to them or society at large.

And it’s what we’ve been warning for over a hundred years. Degrading the value of life across the entire spectrum.

[exit82]

Wrong question.

The question is, “Why should the baby DIE?”

[Sergio]

bkmk

[mom4melody]

Exactly.

[bmwcyle]

And stupid Freepers think Rick Stantorum has said too much about morality. Rick has not said enough.

[Little Ray]

And people laughed at the idea of a slippery slope for the tolerance of abortion and perversion.

Well, now we’re on slide and nowhere near the bottom... and folks are probably wondering “What am I doing in this hand basket? And why is it getting so hot?”

Or, as Kipling put it:

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

[jesseam]

Re: Pure unadulterated evil.

I am convinced there will be an accountability for your actions in this life so I would much rather be in my shoes than in obamas and any other abortionists shoes when the time comes.

[fella]

Just another progressive step toward the goal of the legal euthanizing of those deemed politically inconvenient.

[MrB]

Indeed - those who promote evil need to be brought forth to defend the despicable things they support.

[The_Reader_David]

This sort of “ethical reasoning” is the causistry of demons, and is, in fact, the logical outcome of any line of argument that at some point does not recognize that abortion is homicide (and thus abortion for convenience or, indeed, for any reason other than self-defense is murder — this is not the place to argue over whether self-defense includes only the life of the mother or extends to grievous harm to the mother or even a rape-and-incest exception).

All argumentation on behalf of abortion requires effacing the bright line between potential person and actual person created by recognizing an ununited human sperm cell and human egg cell as a potential person, and their union as a person. Once that demonic step has been taken, the conclusions of the authors cited follow without the further introduction of evil notions: as they correctly note that other separations of potential and actual make no sense.

[robowombat]

Unfortunately the late Cardinal Bernardin effectively muffled the clarity of the Catholic position on this matter by pulling ‘the seamless garment’ of supposed ethical teaching of the Magesterium. So abortion was equated to and merged with the death penalty question and even more problematic issues such as ‘social justice’ and the ‘preferential orientation’ to the poor.
I am not a Catholic but if what is normally believed among Christians
About each person having to account for their conduct in this life in the next is so I wouldn't want to be in Bernardin’s figurative shoes when he is called to give account for himself.