What the 'After-Birth Abortion' and 'Personhood' Debates Have in Common
An article published in February in the international, peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics is making headlines around the world. In the article, former Cambridge and Oxford University researchers Dr. Alberto Giubilini and Dr. Francesca Minerva argue the very point pro-life advocates have said all along: There is no essential difference between a fetus and a newborn, and their moral status is the same.
Pro-life supporters should be elated.
But we're not.
In claiming that unborn children and newborn children are morally equivalent, Giubilini and Minerva are not arguing for the right to life. To the contrary, the article advocates what the authors term "after-birth abortion." The British tabloid The Sun put it a bit more starkly in a headline last week: "Slaughter Newborn Kids, Say Academics." The Telegraph's headline sums it up this way: "Killing Babies Is No Different From Abortion."
If a newborn will place an "unbearable burden" on the family or society (such as in the case of disability), the researchers argue, the infant should be subject to an after-birth abortion. "Merely being human," they claim, "is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life."
Not surprisingly (and thankfully), the article has garnered vehement backlash from across the globe, particularly in the blogosphere. (Sadly, some of those claiming to defend life have resorted to less-than-ethical responses to the article, even to the point of death threats.)
The journal's editor has defended the decision to publish the article, but not merely on the usual grounds of academic freedom. Instead, noting that infanticide is legal in the Netherlands, the editor argues that publishing the article reflects the journal's support of "sound rational argument and freedom of ethical expression." The editor explains, "The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject."
It's hard to dispute such sound logic, as a blog at the British newspaper The Telegraphpoints out. The article is so extremely logical, in fact, that it's reminiscent of Jonathan Swift's famous 18th-century satire, A Modest Proposal. The "proposal" offers an utterly rational appeal to the Irish to alleviate their poverty by raising and selling their children to the English for food. Like the journal article under discussion, the reasoning is impeccable. However, chief among the satire's many objects of correction (for correction is the purpose of true satire) is rationalism, a worldview that depends entirely—like the journal article—on human reason at the expense of human emotion, human spirit, and human love—let alone eternal principles that transcend even these.
Stay Sexy or Else? Well, Please Forgive These Mommy Hips
Desperate for Their MRS. Degrees
'The Office' Shows Even TV Romance Isn't Picture-Perfect
The Double Shock of Unexpected Pregnancy
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Pinterest
Comments
Displaying 1–10 of 41 comments
See all comments
Bob
The logic used to justify abortion and after-birth abortion or whatever someone chooses to call it is the same as what was used for African slaves in the US and Jews in Nazi Germany, that is, define the one in question as a nonperson and then deprive them of the protection of the law. Who will be next? Old people who require too much medical care? Children with autism? Anyone with wrong political ideas? Once the concept of humans being created in the image of God is lost, the boundary becomes arbitrary, and in becoming arbitrary it disappears.
KAREN SWALLOW PRIOR
Thank you, Anonymous, for the excellent point and hard questions you raise. It really does take a community, doesn't it? And that is why the church is a BODY not an individual. Thank you for your poignant reminder.
Doreen Ashley
Thank you for this article. I am the parent of a young woman with a disability and also a professional who works with families of children with disabilities. This kind of thinking has been an undercurrent in the medical system for some time. Parents are regularly told that their child would be better off not being born and they must be "responsible" and not burden our society by bringing them into the world. Infanticide is the next logical step in this thinking. As Christians we ,must be willing to open our hearts, churches, and frankly pocketbooks to families who nave children with disabilities. I have heard (and experienced) too many stories of churches that reject these precious ones for a litany of reasons : "We don't know how to work with these kids", "They disturb the other childen-or adults" and in some cases"we don't want them here". We also must be aware of the cost both financially and emotionally to families. Are we willing to help them? Raising a child with a disability is expensive. Are we offering the family respite? Are we helping with medical bills? Are we helping them with therapies? Are we letting our own children have a playdate with them? I cringe when I here some of my conservative Christian friends use rhetoric that talks about "personal responsibility" and smaller government. These very same arguments can be used to encourage a family to abort a child with a disability and the very government programs or policies may be used to support the child to live a good life. In my own state we have seen services for people with disabilities take huge cuts-impacting families greatly. There has been no corresponding increase in help from the private sector, or sadly from the church. So I hope along with your very appropriate outrage will come a real sense of need to do something for families who live this everyday, and worry about what the future holds for our children
Sheri
Isn't "after-birth abortion" an oxymoron? How can you "abort" a baby that's been born? Let's be like the Brits and call it what it is - infanticide, baby killing or just plain murder. (I love the British tabloids for calling a spade a spade.)
beth
the personhood of corporations has actually been a long-running legal debate, though usually a quiet one out of the public's attention. the reason it has been established is because only persons can be taxed. if you want to tax corporations, they must be 'persons.' it is interesting to see people like steve react to this journal article with instant denial: no one i know thinks this would be ok! well, the authors of the journal article do! and then there's the netherlands. just becausue you don't like it doesn't mean you can say it ain't so! very sad state of affairs where only the strong or the useful are deemed worthy of survival.
kate
My moral choice is to live by God's truth, and not by the world's "truth". He sees the hearts of all people. Seeking His face and praying for Him to move in this is what can make a difference. Posing scenarios, debating what is right and wrong, putting down one another tends to not bring much unity among believers. It's time for us to love and pray for fallen mankind without ceasing! God is so good!!
maureen
If you did not know that the 25,000 frozen fertile eggs were there, this could not form part of your moral choice. There is also a universe of difference between 25,000 frozen fertile eggs and just one frozen fertilized embryo,(for those who believe that human life begins at fertilisation). Others believe that it begins at conception, (when the fertilised egg implants into the womb, or the embryo created by IVF is so implanted).
kate
In answer to the fertility clinic blowing up and choosing to save a four year-old boy hiding under a desk near the body of his dead mother, or the refrigerated transport case with 25,000 frozen fertile human eggs in it, I would save the boy. How in the world am I going to know that there are 25,000 frozen fertile human eggs in the clinic?? Hello?? And if the courts deem my actions as wrong, then send me to prison. Satan quoted the scripture to tempt Jesus in the wilderness. When anyone uses what is right in God's eyes against believers to make them fall is a very sad day indeed. We all can come up with ideals of what is right and wrong, but when we fail to come to God to know what is right and wrong, we live in darkness.
Amy Bodde
Thank you for writing this, Karen. What a sad state of affairs we have. I hope and pray that God will use this "logic" to extend rights to life to the unborn and not the opposite way around, which it appears the authors intended.
Sia McKye
"...the editor argues that publishing the article reflects the journals support of sound rational argument and freedom of ethical expression." Excuse me, 'sound' what? LOLOLOL! Sorry, rational doesn't belong in that sentence. Rational (intelligent, reasonable, reasoning, thinking)=having reason or understanding Hmmm, I'm thinking the editor didn't look up the word before using it. Nothing rational about her statement or the idea of 'post birth abortions'.
*