a recent blog I addressed the idea of Christian perinatal hospice. It is a
concept whereby parents facing a pregnancy involving a terminally ill unborn
child are supported to carry their baby to term and prepare for their child’s
death. It is a ministry of loving care for the entire family while honouring
the humanity of their baby.
sooner had I written the blog and I came across a disturbing article
published in the March 23rd 2012 edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” It was written
by Dr. Alberto Giugilini at the
University of Melbourne in Australia and Francesca Minerva who is associated
with Oxford’s Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics in the United Kingdom.
the article, Giugilini and Minerva state: “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.” They argue that newborn babies are only potential persons without any
interests and should be subject to the interests of actual persons of their
families. They try to extend the abortion mentality beyond birth: “If criteria
such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents
are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy,
if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if
neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the
same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the
potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.” Giugilini and Minerva
do not identify when they think newborn babies should become actual people.
argument is not new, nor are they the only ones to advocate such things in the callous
Brave New World of secular bioethics. American ethics professor at the
University of Virginia and Harvard, Joseph Fletcher (1905-1991) was a pioneer
of bioethics. Forty years ago, he advocated “post-birth abortion” for disabled
newborns. His criteria for “post-birth abortion” was simple: If a baby does not
increase happiness or reduce human suffering then the baby should die.
University professor Peter Singer has argued that infants have no moral right
to life because they are not “persons.” In an interview he was asked when he
thought an infant becomes a person? He said “sometime during the first year of
life.” He has advocated the killing of healthy babies for more than 30 years. In 1981, Singer wrote:
it must be admitted that these arguments apply to the newborn baby as much as to
the fetus. A week-old baby is not a rational
and self-conscious being, and there are many non-human animals whose
rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel pain (sentience),
and so on, exceed that of a human baby a week, a month, or even a year
old. If the fetus does not have
the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby is of
less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee [Peter
Singer, "Taking life: abortion", in
Practical Ethics (London:
Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 118] (emphases
might be inclined to relegate such ideas to quacks but that’s not true. These
barbaric views come from professors at prestigious universities. More and more,
what they espouse is being accepted in elite society and put into practise.
is the term “after-birth abortion” used instead of infanticide? Could it be
that abortion is so pervasive and the abortion mentality so widely accepted,
that couching infanticide in the abortion mentality is perceived as an easier
sell to society? After all, the culture has coarsened to the point where
killing disabled newborns is accepted, but not yet so coarse as to sanction the
killing of healthy but unwanted babies. The idea will require some – how should I
say it? – marketing.
that abortion had to be marketed in the 1960s to soften public attitudes.
Previous generations would be horrified at the wide-spread abortion we now have
in Canada, the United States and Europe. What was unacceptable in the past, becomes tolerable today and
commonplace tomorrow, unless checked by moral absolutes.
People who believe in a just and compassionate society of inclusion must stand up
for the value of every human life even in a culture that no longer believes it
(especially in a culture that no longer believes it).
Yes! Human Life does matter. Abortion should only be allowed if done early. Medical termination should should be performed early in pregnancy and through doctors who have been granted special authroisation to aminister these medications.
http://gcaus.com.au/page/terminations/medical-termination | gcaus.com.au/page/terminations/medical-termination | GCAUS medical abortion | GCAUS medical abortion cost
Post a Comment