Editor identifies critics of "after-birth abortion" as "fanatics"...

Son Joseph didn't apply to Princeton because of their recent hire of the bloodthirsty Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, who argued that a decent pet has more of a moral claim on us than a newborn baby.

Lockstep in Singer's bloody path, two other Aussies, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, just published a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics arguing it should be legal to murder newborn babies--including those with no handicaps. They call it "after-birth abortion" and the title of their paper is "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?"

Here's the abstract:

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.

Some with consciences shaken awake have taken the journal's editor, Julian Savulescu, to task for justifying the murder of little babies. Savulescu responded at length...

saying things along this line:

As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend (the article's) publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.

The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.

Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. 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...

Don't you love that capital "T" on the front of "Truth." Reminds me of Pilate.

Then Savulescu shows the nature of progressive minds minted by the Academy:

What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.

(TB, w/thanks to Alex C.)

Comments

In an odd way, it is nice to see that the veneer has been stripped away to reveal the rotting wood beneath. Formerly, pro-lifers have made arguments that life should be defined as beginning at conception rather than some arbitrary, shifting standard for the very reason that the logical conclusion of the "personhood" definition of life leads to infanticide. This argument, in my experience, is usually countered with, "OOOH! Now there's a slippery slope if I ever heard one. Don't be ridiculous!" Not so ridiculous as it once seemed, is it?

The dirty little secret is that anti-lifers, for the most part, agree that life begins at conception; they just refuse to admit their true motives for supporting the murder of the unborn. The heart of man is desperately wicked and we have plenty of ways to hide the truth -- even from ourselves. There are those who hate God so much that they will do anything to eradicate Him from their lives; even if it means killing those made in His very image. Animals and trees, which are not made in God's image, are to be protected while man, who is made in God's image, is disposable.

We need to do at least two things, both are found in Acts 17:

(1)Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols.

(2) So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present.

We can not be silent about this monstrosity that sees a pet as having a greater sanction to live than a human. I wonder: does Singer see himself as someone's pet? Is that how he justifies these horrors?

The truth is astonishing when it comes from the lost. They get it, sometimes.

Of course, if an unborn baby may be legally murdered, then any life may be taken for the same reasons.

It's terrifying that our "Christian", civilized society should argue in this vein, but it's logical.

Pro-abortion feminists don't try to pretend the unborn aren't babies anymore. They acknowledge that they are choosing between the life or death of their child.

Reading Naomi Wolf's Our Bodies, Our Souls was helpful in understanding the abortion position.

I find it interesting (?) that the pedigree of the authors is philosophy and ethics. Interesting isn't the best word, but I couldn't think of a better one. This fact further underscores what I said above. Philosophers are adept at obfuscating the truth and putting forth false motives while insisting that they are above it all.

Gnostics at heart, these people are the high priests of the church of secular-humanism, whose one and only commandment is "thou shalt look out for number one."

One last thing . . .

While I appreciate the sentiment of being called a fanatic, I think the reaction to this barely qualifies as lukewarm. Oh, that more would be fanatical for the lives of our children.

"O, that way lies madness; let me shun that."
- WS, King Lear

Not exactly the right context, but the sentiment applies. Shortly after noon today, my woefully deceived and deceiving Representative took to the floor of the House during one minute speeches to remind us all that this is 2012 and not the Dark Ages. Two which I have two replies:

She's wrong this IS a dark age. And, second, I'm not do sure I wouldn't rather live in the previous time alleged to have been a dark age. From this distance, their evils seem so honestly evil in comparison

"The New American Standard Version reflects the emphasis of most translations when it renders the passage this way:

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

"From this translation, it may be inferred that the fetus is not considered human life since the loss of the fetus by miscarriage is punished only by a fine while lex talionis, (a life for life, an eye for eye) would be expected penalty in the death of a human person. This interpretation has the support of many respected evangelical scholars [including] Bruce Waltke of Dallas Seminary"

-Dr. Bruce Waltke, OT Scholar and NASB and NIV translation committee member.
http://www.plymouthbrethren.org/article/9654

The definition of personhood depends how your scholars translate and interpret the text.

Thankfully, Dr. Waltke has since repudiated this position.

But the text is translated elsewhere as "give birth prematurely." Looking at the Hebrew, a wooden translation would be, "and the child goes out." And most other translations have it that way. So a safer bet would be to say the child may well survive but if not, the man is to pay life for life.

The logical extension to the pro-abortion argument is ultimately going to lead to this. I am afraid that we (or our children, or our children's children) may live in a "time" when parents can decide to murder their children at any point "...if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden..."

Daddy is unemployed now, dear, so we need to end your life in order to make ends meet.

I pray that this paper will go viral and indeed open up the pro-deathers' eyes to see where their arguments are headed!

We really do live in a very dark age! In our state, the governor is a former E.R. physician. He's very liberal, pro-abortion, etc. Our state is one of the few that has legal physician assisted suicide. The only way to be sure your life is protected in our state is to be on death row for murder as our governor has come out against the death penalty which will no longer be allowed.

Talk about calling evil good and good evil. Lord, please deliver us from this present evil age!

Blessings,
Nancy

RE: Post #8 and Exodus 21:22 in NASB -

The updated NASB has been out for well over a decade. It changed it's translation on this passage from:

"so that she has a miscarriage" (death)

to

"so that she gives birth prematurely" (life).

The earlier translation was in error with the Hebrew text.

Dr. Robinson's 2008 article used the old NASB which was corrected in 1995.

If "and the child goes out" is translated as "miscarriage," then the rest of this law directing "life for life, eye for eye," etc. doesn't make a lot of sense, because it would have to refer to the mother's life, eye, tooth, etc, as opposed to the child's life, eye, tooth, etc. So if a pregnant woman is struck such that she both loses an eye and goes into labor, and the baby dies, then the perpetrator only owes her an eye, and a monetary fine for her troubles? That just doesn't make sense in the context of Exodus, or the rest of Scripture. On the other hand, if it is translated "she gives birth prematurely": the perpetrator strikes her in such a way that she goes into labor, and her child survives, but her child lost an eye due to the trauma, then the perpetrator owes that child an eye. That makes sense in the context of Exodus, in the context of the rest of Scripture. As such, then, the "life for life" must also refer to the child's life. There are other laws elsewhere dealing with punishment for the assault, maiming or murder of someone who has already been born; this law is obviously given to address the assault, maiming or murder of someone who has not yet been born.

Thank you Ted.

Wonder why these scholars mistranslated this passage at the outset. Their mistake has led to untold bloodshed.

Let me get this straight...

We are opposed to killing babies and this knucklehead says WE are the fanatics?!

Reading the full article made me feel sick. If you don't want to wade through it all, here are a few critical quotes

"The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense."

"The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual."

"Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life."

"We might still have moral duties towards future generations in spite of these future people not existing yet. But because we take it for granted that such people will exist (whoever they will be), we must treat them as actual persons of the future. This argument, however, does not apply to this particular newborn or infant, because we are not justified in taking it for granted that she will exist as a person in the future. Whether she will exist is exactly what our choice is about."

"Why should we kill a healthy newborn when giving it up for adoption would not breach anyone's right but possibly increase the happiness of people involved (adopters and adoptee)? Our reply is the following. We have previously discussed the argument from potentiality, showing that it is not strong enough to outweigh the consideration of the interests of actual people. Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero. On this perspective, the interests of the actual people involved matter, and among these interests, we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption. Birthmothers are often reported to experience serious psychological problems due to the inability to elaborate their loss and to cope with their grief."

"What we are suggesting is that, if interests of actual people should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption."

This is the logic of hell.

If abortion is OK and infanticide is OK, killing old people is obviously OK, but on what moral foundation do the middle-aged get protection? Would the Journal publish an article arguing "on widely accepted premises" that anyone with the power to do it is entitled to kill anyone else? If not, why not?

If "logic" is the standard, how is it that responders to this article are criticized for being "hostile, abusive, and threatening," while the takers-of-lives, who must resort to hostility, abusiveness, and / or a threatening [demeanor] to accomplish their slaughter, are let off scot-free?

I like the subtle message shrouded in the URL for this post. Congrats.

My bragging. I'm sorry. I edited it out, but since a bot sets the title of the permalink by the first sentence of the post when it's first being written, that first wording lives on.

Love,

I think we should kill all the baby boomers. I mean, my right to keep the money that I pay into Social Security (socialist insecurity) should trump their right to live a comfortable retirement, right? I mean since their actual happiness is still in doubt and my real happiness is contingent upon me keeping this money, my actual happiness overrides their potential future happiness. Let's just kill them all and then we can all be happy. (joke)

I just cannot stop thinking about this article and the implications.

I would say that it is the logical conclusion of a pro-choice/pro-abortion/anti-life position, but it is merely a stepping stone. The fact is that the authors only go so far, but leave the door wide open for further "progress" in this matter. Their conclusion makes this very clear:

"First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess."

No threshold for "non-medical reasons"? So if I decide that my 5 year old is too much of a burden, I should be free to murder -- I mean "abort" -- him? Seriously, when do "potential people" become "actual people"? Is it when they reach an age of legal consent? But when is that? 13 year olds can get abortions without parental consent. 16 year olds can drive. 18 year olds can vote and enter the military. 21 year olds can buy and consume alcohol. How do we measure the "potentiality" of human beings so that we can decide that they are actually full-blown people with all the rights afforded them.

And then there's this little issue: I am certain that the authors of this paper would support anti-spanking laws. So it's okay for me to kill my child of whatever age, but if I spank my sons in accordance with my convictions and the Word of God, I am dangerous and my children should be taken from me.

All I can say is, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

I notice that "medical ethicists" invariably categorize themselves among the human lives worthy of preservation. A coincidence, no doubt.

Right. The mother might suffer "psychological distress" or "be damaged" from making an adoption plan, but won't suffer distress from knowing that she killed her child??!? Oh sorry, we don't call it murder, we just call it "post-birth abortion."

Articles like this make me want to scream.

I find it interesting that killing/slaughtering/butchering a child before birth and after birth is not only acceptable to talk about but based upon "widely agreed premises", even OK to actually do. What the author finds heinous, ghastly, and unacceptable are people who write in and vehemently disagree with his freedom of speech in his exalted liberal society.

This blog post has caused me to finally begin to wake up to the evil that is, and has been, taking place every day in this country. In thinking about the arguments of this article, and then thinking (and learning) about partial birth abortion, and then thinking (and learning) about abortion....I'm finally starting to realize the horrific evil of it all. I don't know why I've been SO calloused about it! I've grown up knowing about abortion and thinking that it was a normal part of life. A normal part of life!?!?

I don't know what else to say. WHAT in the world is wrong with me? And where do I go from here?

Malorie, what is "wrong" with you is that you are a sinner and you must repent, even if the sin stems from past ignorance on these issues. I used to be pretty liberal, pro-choice, an ally to GLBT, etc., but the Lord rescued me from that path of thinking and opened my eyes to heinous things that I had just accepted "as is." I don't know if the Baylys would promote this book or not, but I personally found the book "Why Pro Life?" by Randy Alcorn to be very helpful - both in understanding my own position and also strengthening my pro-life argument. Perhaps other brothers and sisters on this blog will have more suggestions for you.

In other news, apparently a legislator in IL is trying to add some "gender equity" to their state's proposed ultrasound bill -- by requiring men who want prescriptions for Viagra to be forced to watch a video of its "horrific side effects" first. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/viagra-amendment-ultrasound-mandate-illinois_n_1321800.html

Comparing an abortion procedure to a viagra prescription?!?!

The link to this disturbing article no longer works. Anyone know why? An article commenting on it says "As much as conservatives hate it, progressives hate it more. Many are convinced that it's a plant by the pro-life crowd." I must say, after losing sleep over this, I was hoping that might be the case.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/article_advocating_after-birth_abortion_mugs_liberals_with_reality.html#.T1V-JezL9h8.facebook#ixzz1oMesr0m0

I have a saved copy from my browser cache....

Sorry. The article is still on the Journal of Medical Ethics site, just under a different web address. Before posting I had searched the JME site for "after-birth abortion" and "abortion," and the article in question didn't turn up. However, after I posted a comment here, I went to the main page of the JME and found a link to the abstract, then from there a link to the new article. I compared the new web address with the old one and found that the date was changed. Does that mean the article was edited or updated? Perhaps online journals do this all the time; I don't know, I don't look at that many academic journals. I just found it odd that after links to this article appeared all over Facebook and the rest of the Internet, suddenly the links don't work.

I couldn't find the article, but I found this: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2012/03/06/the-great-after-birth-abortion-non-apology-apology/

They say it's been removed and that a "non-apology apology" was issued by the authors. I wish they'd leave it up there. People will forget too quickly.

I can't believe that the authors are actually serious. But then I keep being faced with the thought, "Why not? People are ok with abortion, and there is no difference between infanticide and abortion except the murder site."

Let's not forget. Let's not fall back asleep. Many of you are not asleep, but I have been. Somebody help me stay awake. It is so easy to fall asleep.

The authors of this article are essentially declaring themselves 'gods'. May God (the one true God) help us and protect us from the results of this kind of illogic and evil.

Add new comment