THE "AFTER BIRTH ABORTION" DEBATE

By Marianne Mauti

How is it possible for people with eyes , ears and a heart to be convinced or to convince others that babies that are already born are not human beings and should still be able to be aborted, or murdered (let's call it what it really is). It sounds surreal, like a sic-fi movie and yet it has been written about and proposed since the turn of the 20th century by the brilliant academic minds of the time and it is once again rearing its ugly head, as the world becomes increasingly immoral and ethically void. If you haven't heard about this disgusting concept yet, it is called "After Birth Abortion." 

In a recent article on by Carly Hill (for GenFringe.com), she shares the horror of this renewed concept that is gaining attention and acceptance. Here what she had to say," Two years ago, two bioethicists, Alberto Giubilini and Frencesca Minerva wrote a medical ethics paper with a shockingly horrible concept." These two bioethicists assert that "killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is allowed, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

 It is absolutely ok and legal to kill a disabled child before it is born, so it should only stand to reason that we should be willing to accept the premise of killing one after it is born, even a healthy baby! 

They go on to say in their paper," Both fetus and new born certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a 'person' in the sense of 'subject of a moral right to life.' We take 'person to mean an individual who is capable of to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her." In other words individuals who are not in a condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not people."

"Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. When circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion (birth defects or unwanted pregnancy),abortion should still be permissible. We call this practice 'after-birth abortion', rather than 'infanticide,' to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus….rather than to that of a child." 

"Therefore we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the new born has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk"

Can I just say, for me, it takes a few moments to even process that kind of cold and calculated thinking, it is just pure evil! But it isn't anything new, it is the same philosophy that birthed Adolph Hitlers, "Final Solution."(the extreme end of this philosophy) 

Adolf Hitlers believed (after reading what the American Academic philosophers were saying about abortion and euthanasia) that if you were not capable of contributing to society you could be deemed a non- person. He simply need a scientific reason to disassociate himself and then others from the guilt and responsibility associated with killing a real person! 

Once he convinced the German people, through propaganda and scientific backing, that Jews were not real people (the were descendants of Rats) he was able to begin the systematic extermination of a religious race of people, one country at a time. This should send chills down every one of our spines! Carly Hill had this to say in her recent article ," People, this is where moral relativism has taken us. We've gone from saying it's ok to dismember and decapitate a baby, as long as it's in its mother's womb, to saying that babies that are born healthy aren't really people. Where do these professors draw the line? 

Regular, run of the mill abortions show us how sick we are- and what little regard we have for human life, but supporting the idea of killing healthy infants? I am speechless. 

A society void of morals becomes so numb to evil and so consumed with self, that they might suggest something unthinkable like, say, killing children."

She went on to report,"CNN recently reported on a story done by Yale that proved babies as young as 3 months old entertained with a puppet show featuring a 'good' and 'bad' character would take a cookie from the good character. Almost 90% of infants preferred the 'good' puppet and even chose to 'punish' the bad puppet when they were given the chance, showing that even babies have a sense of justice."

In his article,"Whats Wrong with 'After-Birth Abortion," William Saletan had this to say," Just when you think things couldn't get crazier here comes the academia left with an even crazier idea 'after-birth abortion'. Predictibly this has sparked outrage. Last week Rep. Joe Pitts,R-Pa. and Chris Smith, R-NJ., denounced it on the house floor."

But this comment  was very revealing and poignant,"It isn't the pro-lifers who should worry about the Giubilini-Minerva proposal, it is pro-choicers. The case for 'after birth abortion'    draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us , implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn't."

"Proponents of abortion," Saletan says, "Believe that the value of life depends on choice. They don't accept the idea that the path from pregnancy to maternity, being natural, must be followed. They argue that the choice is up to the woman. Some assert the life within her has no moral status until she chooses to give birth to it."

Giubilini and Minerva simply extend this logic beyond birth. "Since the newborn isn't a person yet, it's significance continues to hinge on it's mothers decision. They might or might not become particular persons depending on our choice. Until then, the newborn imposes no obligation on us, because we are not justified in taking it for granted that it will exist as a person in the future."

Finally Giublini and Minerva show us the true evil and deplorable nature of this way of thinking, which if left unchecked will begin to work its way into our society here:  "The discovery of a serious defect is grounds for termination. Fetal development can turn tragic at any point. While we already accept the termination of a child (before it is born) who has a grave defect, including the third trimester,what is to stop us from accepting the termination of a child found to have defects after they are born. Giulibini and Minerva argue that, "not all defects can be detected before birth.There are often ones that remain undiscovered until birth.

In an examination of 18 European registries between 2005 and 2009, 1700 infants were born with Down Syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. So the thinking is, these parents should have the choice to end that life when they see what defect the baby has. The few minutes after the child is born should not matter, when just a few minutes before it was born they would have legally been able to terminate the pregnancy.

Here is the crux of their belief, "If criteria such as the cost (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a new born."

Here is the moral challenge.The value of any life increases over time, through physical and mental development. What about diseases and defects that take years to come to the surface in many children's lives? Will we start slaughtering them? Who determines at what point a human life has enough value to be considered a person? Can a person become a non-person if defects are found? Adolf Hitler thought so and we see how that turned out. 

Every human being should be mad, angry, repulsed and disgusted by anyone who would even consider this as a viable option!!!!! But the truth is, this door would never have opened in America if we hadn't stopped valuing all human life, beginning with the unborn! Now that the door is open, the next logical scientific step of a society that believes we are all descendants of slime, is survival of the fittest. Is America heading for a different kind of 'Final Solution' of her own? That is horrible the  question that remains.

A PERSONAL NOTE: I believe Christians need to be informed and pro active.We can't bury our head in the sand and pretend this isn't our problem or wait for Jesus to get us out of this mess. We have a responsibility to preach, teach and advance the Kingdom of God while we are here. For us to not speak out would be a greater sin! I hope we all speak out every chance we get. Lets continue to pray for God to change the hearts and minds of these people and lets vote our conscience and not our pocketbook! When we have done all we can……. then God……..

***********************************************************

Welcome to: A Christian View on Today's Top Stories

A Christian View on Today's Top Stories is an online news source for those who ascribe to a "Christian WorldView." We hope to share current issues, top trending stories and subject of interest from all over the world! While today's major media outlets share information on events  from a very bias, humanistic world viewpoint, we hope to be a common sense, conservative, Christian voice. We hope you will join us by subscribing to our daily posts and "liking" us at our "A Christian View on Today's Top Stories," page on Facebook! 

************************************************************************

PLEASE NOTE: 'A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF TODAY'S TOP STORIES', Does not personally endorse any  ministry, magazine, blog or secular publication shared on this site. 

ABOUT US: 'A CHRISTIAN VIEW ON TODAY'S TOP STORIES': Is a subsidiary of "FORGING OUR FAITH" Ministries. Editor in Chief: Marianne Mauti .

PLEASE CONTACT US: if you want to reprint any of our articles. We can be reached  at forgingyourfaith@ aol.com. Thank you!

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:  Carly Hill /for GenFringe.com, Alberto Giubilini and Frencesca Minerva / medical ethics paper, William Saletan / "Whats Wrong with 'After-Birth Abortion"