The spade called Infanticide and the After-birth abortion advocates
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
Eggs on holiday: why I support the Liberal Ladies Who Lunch and their planned Access Denied strike
Over two years since her untimely death her face has become imprinted on our social consciousness: the wide blue-green eyes and angel's face that took a pixie-like quality when she smiled. Most Americans have come to...
A fun trivia quiz about cold, snow and winter in movies and films.