NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

What was almost unimaginable just a few years ago is now an ugly reality, with worse in the offing

by | Feb 27, 2019

By Dave Andrusko

Bioethicists Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva

After I finished a New York Times piece by a science reporter whom I respect that distorted beyond measure the debate over (non) treatment of Born-Alive abortion survivors, it caused me to think that reposting a couple of articles we wrote that go back years would provide helpful reminders of how we got to where we are at.

Nothing happens in a vacuum and the worst atrocities often are the culmination—the temporary end point, alas—of a series of hideous mistakes that cultures may initially balk at but quickly absorb. Such is the case with infanticide.

The tip of the sword is babies with various degrees of anomalies. “Surely,” the argument goes, it is an act of mercy, not the opposite, to allow them to die, i.e., do nothing other than wrap them in a blanket. Of course, this is the pure bunk and cruel beyond measure.

And no sooner does the principle of non-treatment wheedle its way into medical protocols than the bar is lowered for what level of “disability” qualifies an abortion survivor for non-treatment. And then (see Europe) presto chango, what’s the real difference between an unborn baby and a newborn anyway?

Long ago Peter Singer established that neither is a “person” and if what “allows abortion also allows infanticide under some circumstances,” then it follows that “If we accept abortion, we do need to rethink some of those more fundamental attitudes about human life.”

Time to revisit “After-birth abortion” and euthanizing children, shots across the bow if ever there were ones. The following is excerpted from a 2014 post.


I wrote about “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” so many times, I won’t belabor how two Australian “bioethicists,” Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, came to the daft conclusion 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.”

Besides Andrew Ferguson already boiled their thesis down in a brilliant piece that ran in The Weekly Standard in May 2012: “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. 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.”

Back almost exactly two years ago, would anyone (except the deep thinkers who write for journals such as the Journal of Medical Ethics) have anticipated that any country—even Belgium!—would have removed all age restrictions on whom can “access euthanasia” (as two Australian bioethicists put it)?

We’re talking about children of any age who can be euthanized provided the usual boxes are checked off. And this creepy expansion came about even though popularizers of assisted suicide for teens and adults admit there are already problems (abuses) galore.

So what? Let’s double down and extend this “right” to everyone.

Two years ago would we have anticipated an ever-mounting number of newborns stuffed into garbage bags and tossed into dumpsters? Would anyone—anyone—have believed that security at Victoria’s Secret in New York City’s Herald Square would find a dead baby in a teenager’s shopping bag after they stopped the girl and a friend suspected of shoplifting?

Two years ago would we have anticipated the British publication The Daily Mail running a story this week which claimed that 66 babies survived abortion attempts in one year alone?

Wouldn’t we have been surprised, two years ago, to learn that boyfriends nowadays are becoming more and more sophisticated in their plots to kill their unborn children? That the most famous—the recently convicted Andrew Welden—would forge a prescription for a drug that induces abortion, scratch off the label and relabeled it as a common antibiotic, and then tell his pregnant girlfriend that his physician father said she had an infection and should take the mislabeled medication?

You get the message, of course. What was almost unimaginable just a few years ago is now an ugly reality, with worse in the offing.

Categories: Abortion
Tags: abortion