NRL News

“Medical Ethics” and “After-Birth Abortion”

by | Mar 14, 2012

By Dave Andrusko

Every time I’ve written about, or reprinted columns about, “after-birth abortion,” my inbox is flooded with responses. It’s not like pro-lifers hadn’t figured out that many “bioethicists” had spent decades cultivating the ground and planting the seeds for infanticide. Their indignation, rather, was not only that bioethicists Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva were so brazen in their case for infanticide, but that the potential pool of their victims was expanded beyond what we thought in our worst nightmares was possible.

The latest evisceration of “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” appears in the Weekly Standard magazine. Written by Andrew Ferguson, “The disgrace of medical ethics” might possibly be the best critique that I’ve read. And that’s saying a lot.

Remember the basic—and I do mean basic—premise that undergirds Giubilini and Minerva case for death is, “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.” Put another way, whatever reasons, however morally unserious, we use to justify killing the unborn apply just as well to newborns. Why?

“Neither fetus nor baby has developed a sufficient sense of his own life to know what it would be like to be deprived of it,” Ferguson writes. “The kid will never know the difference, in other words. A newborn baby is just a fetus who’s hung around a bit too long.”

Again, the basic premise is if anything comes along that changes the mother’s plans—any “social” reason—she can return the kid like she would an unwanted present to Walmart. Only this “present” is a dead baby.

The Giubilini and Minerva article, which appeared in the “Journal of Medical Ethics” is barely 1,500 words long. But I read it so fast (because it made me so angry) that I plumb forgot just how far Giubilini and Minerva extending the killing leash.

Not just newborns with severe injuries (loosely listed under “mentally impaired”), but children with “Treacher-Collins syndrome, which causes facial deformities and respiratory ailments but no mental impairment,” Ferguson writes.

“Kids with TCS are ‘fully aware of their condition, of being different from other people and of all the problems their pathology entails,’ and are therefore, to spare them a life of such unpleasant awareness, eligible for elimination too​—​because they are not mentally impaired.

“The threshold to this ‘right to life’ just gets higher and higher, the more you think about it.”

So, you kill the kid because she lacks awareness. You kill her because she IS aware.

A powerful piece that you should read. The section on how Giubilini and Minerva explain why killing a newborn baby is superior to giving her up for adoption may be the most chilling few sentences you ever read.

“The disgrace of medical ethics” can be found here.

Categories: Infanticide