The spade called Infanticide and the After-birth abortion advocates

After-birth abortion advocates Guibilini and Minerva would have us believe this is a "potential person" and not an actual human being.
After-birth abortion advocates Guibilini and Minerva would have us believe this is a "potential person" and not an actual human being.


They weren’t talking about abortions carried out because the mother’s life depended on it. They weren’t advocating the rights of parents to choose to allow a suffering ill child to pass away with dignity. They were discussing the pros (in their view) of After-birth abortion.

Two bioethicists, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, recently became subjects of controversy for an article they wrote together and which was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. The article, titled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” is an argument for the practice of After-birth abortion, more widely known as infanticide. In their argument the authors cite several reasons for the practice: One of their most repeated arguments being that infants are not persons but only potential persons. In this theme they refer to individuals who have lived past infancy as “actual persons”. They also cite genetic issues, taking Down’s Syndrome as an example the two wrote, “Once these children are born, there is no choice for the parents but to keep the child, which sometimes is exactly what they would not have done if the disease had been diagnosed before birth.”

Another position the authors take is in saying that infants can cause economic hardships for parents.

On the matter of adoption, the authors refer to the fact that adoption may cause psychological stress for a mother giving up her baby.

The article was met by public outrage. Several people have threatened the two and there have even been death threats. Supporters of the pair vehemently oppose the angst the article has met, citing the fact that freedom of speech protects the article and its authors.

Their supporters are correct, yes, but let us not forget that this works both ways. Those who are furious by this article have the very same right to call bullshit bullshit when they see it. Supporters, however, seem to feel the pair's years in academia bolsters the validity of the argument.

The telltale mark of the argument's inherent flaws is the fact they use political correct whitewash in the attempt to redefine the killing of babies. Infanticide by any other name is still infanticide. And the kind of infanticide they advocate is nothing even remotely similar to allowing a baby with a terminal illness or physically devastating condition to die naturally and in the loving arms of the parents. This is cold-hearted, calculated murder.

Beyond the politically correct cuteness to this terminology whitewash lies the reason behind it. They are afraid of calling the proverbial spade the spade it is. They'd prefer a less meaningful term in the hope that by cushioning the shock value the theory will gradually take welcome root in the communal mindset. And this is the crux of the irony here: if you cower in fear of the impact your words hold your chances of survival outside the cushy womb of academia is compromised. If you stoop to lies and cover-ups to validate your opinions then you are frail indeed and prove yourself psychologically unfit to compete against other members of the species. And if the only way you can imagine enjoying life is by living without stress or hardship whatsoever your DNA definitely isn’t fit for the gene pool.

It is time society stops playing the whitewash game. All too often we are afraid of calling that spade the spade, and we do this out of futile guilt or the fear of being made out to be uneducated ignoramuses without the intellectual capacity to even wipe our own butts. But these reactions are part of what the ethically-deficient want. If we were to stop falling for their tricks we’d go a long way in holding them accountable. By accountable I don’t mean taking them out and covering them in tar and feathers and certainly not killing them, but rather by exposing their agenda for what it is. Infanticide may be the genetics and population control of choice for amoral academics but murdering infants is bad medicine for any social ill. Designating one group of human beings as only “potential persons” will inevitably open the doors to more designations. If a society begins to see infants as having no basic human right to life it will not be long until the rest of us just better hope and pray we are physically and psychologically perfect or some academic nutjob will be advocating for our afterbirth abortion, too.

Lastly, murdering babies or anyone out of convenience is evil.

I’m actually glad when the voices of the ethically-deficient speak up. The more we know about people like Guibilini and Minerva and their eugenics agenda the more able we are as a society to take measures toward protecting their intended victims.

©March 14, 2012 by Beth Perry

"In the Flesh" - Pink Floyd - The Wall

If a society begins to see infants as having no basic human right to life it will not be long until the rest of us just better hope and pray we are physically and psychologically perfect or some academic nutjob will be advocating for our afterbirth abortion, too.

More by this Author


Comments 18 comments

powered2020 profile image

powered2020 4 years ago from New Zealand

Hi Beth, nice post. I also don't agree with the authors of that study, but I do have a question for you. If a pregnancy was terminated at maybe 7-9 months, do you see this as comparable to what the authors are suggesting?


bethperry profile image

bethperry 4 years ago from Tennesee Author

Hi powered2010, I wouldn't presume to know the answer to that unless I knew the specifics of why the termination occurred. I am not the Creator nor do I feel privileged to speak for the Creator. But I do feel that life, of both the mother and the baby, are sacred and should never be taken lightly or be subjected to the dictates of intolerant religion, even if that intolerant religion is Science. I hope this helps answers your question.

Thanks for dropping in and reading.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Hello, Beth,

Well, my friend, you have written and published very informative hub that packs a very powerful cautionary message.

And similar to what you pointed out, U.S. society and others are on a steep slipperty slope to all-out genocide. In fact, the way I see it is unborn and new-born babies today, me tomorrow.

In other words, one of these days, it is going to be determined that old people are not dying fast enough; therefore, they must be eliminated, because by staying alive, they are causing healthcare costs to soar through the roof.

Thank you for writing this article because it has added more fuel to the white-hot pro-life fire that is already burning inside me.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Hello, Beth,

I left another comment here but evidently, it was deleted. I guess I said all the wrong things.

Anyway, this is an excellent hub that packs a very powerful cautionary message.


bethperry profile image

bethperry 4 years ago from Tennesee Author

Feenix, they both showed up; I just now approved them :) I am very glad you stopped in and read and left your comments. As always, you are a guiding light in Hubpages.


Kebennett1 profile image

Kebennett1 4 years ago from San Bernardino County, California

I believe that any type of abortion is murder. It doesn't matter to me if your one second pregnant! Life is life and once life is terminated, then it is death and to terminate life is called murder. I is hard enough to deal with abortion at any phase, especially partial birth abortion but now you have people who want to kill an infant after it is born. As far as adoption being psychologically hard on the mother, oh give me a break, a mother allowing her new born infant to be murdered for her convenience won't cause psychological stress? True maybe if the mother is a cold hearted, callous, female dog, other wise it has to cause some damage. It makes me sick to know that humanity has fallen to this level of inhumanity!


bethperry profile image

bethperry 4 years ago from Tennesee Author

Hi Kebennett1, and thanks for reading and commenting.

I agree with you in part. If a woman finds herself in the terrible situation of impending death due to a complication of the pregnancy and has say two little children at home who depend on her survival..well, I just don't think I should be the final Judge and Jury on such a situation, but leave it to the Creator to counsel the mother on the best decision. But such a situation is, in my opinion, the exception that makes the rule.

As to the adoption question -well, I happen to be an adopted child. I met my biological mother at the age of 17 and got to know my other siblings then. And I got to know my mother and that she was very glad I'd been born. You are right, the murder of an infant comes with its own psychological stress. One I don't think many women would even consider.

Thank you again for reading and Gods bless.


Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

WOA!

Sounds like folks plotting murder to me. Premeditated murder in the first degree!

Whatever happened to personal responsibility, and not getting pregnant or not having sex with someone....if nobody wants a child?

I'm going to share this one around a bit.


bethperry profile image

bethperry 4 years ago from Tennesee Author

Wesman, you're right. But what's sadder, I feel, is that the authors of this thing propose the same warped fix even for families who suddenly and unexpectedly fall on hard economic times. Apparently they don't realize that throughout history people have not only lived through financial hardships with children to provide for but even persevered and grown more prosperous through financial hardships with children to provide for.

Thanks for dropping in to read and comment :)


hoteltravel profile image

hoteltravel 4 years ago from Thailand

Yesterday it was fetus that faced murder designs of pro-abortion activists. Now it is infants. How can a sane thinking person call babies 'potential persons'? Who knows whose turn is it tomorrow? Instead of adults taking responsibility for their actions, newer strategies are being planned to keep population under control. Good show Beth! Voted up and awesome.


Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

Oh isn't that wonderful!!!! These fine philosophers are obviously in with the Rockefeller foundation, and the elitist notion of eugenics disguised as philanthropy and common sense.

I'm glad that Ted Turner made it all even more obvious for us all what the goal of the wicked was with his hideous Georgia guide stones!


bethperry profile image

bethperry 4 years ago from Tennesee Author

hoteltravel, agreed and thank you for commenting!


bethperry profile image

bethperry 4 years ago from Tennesee Author

Wesman, I hear you. They remind me of George Bernard Shaw, with his snobby, hateful ideas on the subject. He treated women like garbage and ended up marrying a lesbian because she was rich and inherited everything she had. And yet he acted like his was the ultimate word on social issues and everything there was to know about women.


Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

THAT IS MY GREAT UNCLE!!!!!!!

LOL! Kidding, of course - G.B.S. was a piece of b.s. that's for sure!


Alastar Packer profile image

Alastar Packer 4 years ago from North Carolina

The pairs' years in academia, huh. Bet I know where their funding comes from. Beth without going into it right now this reeks of 'testing the waters.' Seems the test didn't have the results hoped for- and that's a very good thing. Thank you for writing and publishing this.


bethperry profile image

bethperry 4 years ago from Tennesee Author

Alastar, you may be right but on this I rather hope you're not. But I'll tell you this, I can't see why these people are given the title "bioethicist". In this circumstance it seems as much of a farce as many of the Nobel prizes given out these days.

Thanks for reading and commenting.


mizjo profile image

mizjo 4 years ago from New York City, NY

Hi, Beth, maybe these bioethicists will offer themselves on the altar of their religion as the leaders of the next group of post-birth abortion-victims? Of course, after they have been judged unnecessary to and a drain on humanity.

Great hub. Shared everywhere.


bethperry profile image

bethperry 4 years ago from Tennesee Author

Very well said, mizjo! And thanks much.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working