The Journal of Medical Ethics recently published an article which argues that after-birth abortions, otherwise known as infanticide should be permitted. The abstract sums up the paper:
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue 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. Continue reading…
The most shocking thing about this article is that I am not shocked by it. The pro abortion argument is an arbitrary one. It is based not on what the clump of cells or fetus is–a human life–but on when a human life becomes a person. The pro abortion argument rests on the false premise that a human being only has rights when person-hood is conferred. For most abortion proponents, a human life only becomes a person when she is born. But that is just the current acceptable time to snuff out an innocent human being.
Further, most abortions are performed because a child is considered an impediment to the mother’s quality of life. If you are pro abortion, it makes a perverted kind of logic that infanticide is just as acceptable.
Slippery slope indeed.
Mother Mary pray for us!
Sad to think that the medical field is trying to do God’s job…