After-Birth Abortions

Excerpt from "New National Sex-Education Standards Stir Controversy," LifeNews, by Steven Ertelt. February 28, 2012--Two “ethicists” who are college professors in Australia are furthering the pro-infanticide arguments of American professor Peter Singer by calling for so-called “after-birth abortions.” Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.” The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion" as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors’ state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.” This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available. Giubilini and Minerva say that merely being a human being is not enough to warrant a respect for a person’s right to life.

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand. It’s almost a pro-life argument in that it highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument. These two “ethicists” seem to draw the distinction I’ve seen elsewhere of “self-awareness.” But isn’t that a sliding scale? Isn’t that a bit of a judgment call? Doesn’t this also put the crosshairs on the mentally disabled or those who have suffered brain injuries? They throw around this term “potential person” like it’s a real thing. As if it’s science. But there’s no such thing as potential persons. It’s anti-science. There’s defenseless people. Maybe that’s what they mean. In fact, isn’t that really the point? There’s defenseless people and indefensible ethicists.

And Wesley J. Smith, the prominent American bioethics attorney, says bioethics now contains no ethics whatsoever. Or to put it another way, too often bioethics isn’t. On the other hand, to be fair, the ancient Romans exposed inconvenient infants on hills. These authors may want to take us back to those crass values, but I assume they would urge a quicker death.

CMDA Senior Vice President Gene Rudd, MD: "Res ipsa loquitur: quotes from the article by Giubilini and Minerva:

• “After-birth abortion (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."
• “We propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’ to emphasis that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of the fetus.”
• “It should be permissible to practice an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.”
• “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.’”
• “Merely being a human being is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.”
• “A consequence of this position is that the interests of actual people over-ride the interests of merely potential people to become actual ones.”
• “since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions.”
• “We do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible.”
• “In cases where after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reason, we do not suggest any threshold.”

"Aghast? You should be. I was, even though this is not the first modern advocacy for infanticide. And even though many of us have predicted this to be the next decent on the slope upon which we slide.

"I hope you do not forget your visceral response to this. This idea will gain momentum. Moral boundaries are typically breeched subtly by having what was once shocking become debatable, then tolerant. We must allow a God-guided righteous indignation to motivate us to stand boldly against such an affront to life and our Creator.

"I have long resisted the strategy of likening Western civilization’s moral decline to that of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. I thought that comparison unkind, unhelpful and perhaps unfair. No longer! In his 1949 Nuremberg War Crime Trials report published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Leo Alexander, chief U.S. medical representative, commented, 'it became evident to all who investigated that they (the crimes) had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift of emphasis in the attitudes of physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived.'

"After first being shocked by this article, I now have a sense of foreboding, knowing this 'attitude' was accepted for publication in a prominent medical journal."

CMDA Ethics Statement: Abortion
Mental Health Risks of Abortion