A year or so ago, I was having dinner with some friends and the conversation turned first political and then somewhat controversial when the subject of abortion was brought up. I don't know of anyone who doesn't have an opinion one way or the other. Its a very divisive issue and and emotional one at that.
So when I made the comment that I could foresee post-birth abortions being legal within 50 years, you could imagine the shock and outrage by some of those present. I didn't make the statement flippantly, nor was I trying to be sarcastic. I was serious, sadly serious.
What gave me the courage(?) to make such a statement / prediction was the argument that all too often was used in defence of abortion. That if a fetus that was eligible for abortion was removed from the mother's womb, it would not survive and as such aborting it was not murder. Of course, my counter this line of asinine thinking is that a month old baby would not survive if left on its own too. So should we be able to do away with babies that have been born as well?
This line of thinking can of course be continued to look at other people who are unable to care for themselves. If the test of what would constitute murder is whether the "victim" was able to survive on their own haven't we taken a major step backwards as a society? As human beings?
Of course being human is not enough, but rather being considered a person and you aren't a person if you can't survive on your own and as such ending your life is not murder. At least this is what this group of scientists think:
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “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.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
There is so much in this article that offends me. Obviously I am against abortion as I believe that even as a fetus, they are human beings and therefore persons worthy of life and protection.
What I would like for people to really understand about this article is how it points rather plainly to the 'brave new world' that liberal humanism is shaping for society now that they have managed to dislodge God from much of society.
If you say that a human baby, after being born, is simply a potential person and therefore unworthy of a "moral right to life" that is okay. That is forward thinking. That is the type of thinking that demonstrates the values of a modern "liberal society."
Think about that.
If you are against the notion that babies are no more a person than a carrot or a rock is, then you are a fanatic who is "opposed to the very values of a liberal society."
Is this really the world you want to create?
No comments:
Post a Comment