Blob of tissue; products of conception; clump of cells. Abortion advocacy applies such phrases to make abortion seem to be less than the killing of a human being. Much of the modern Western world has accepted these dehumanizing terms and consequently legalized abortion.
When the United States legalized abortion in the early 1970s, parents knew little about the status and development of the unborn. Since that time, medical research has shown that a newly-conceived human being is far more complex-and human-than a "blob of tissue".
The problem is, abortion is an entrenched cultural dynamic in the western world even as science continually reaffirms the humanity of the unborn. How can societies which have legitimized abortion continue the practice when those societies know those unborn entities are no mere "clumps of cells"?
The latest rhetorical technique is to say that born infants are not persons in the way that you, Mr. or Ms. Reader, are, and thus may be legitimately killed, even after birth.
Authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva recently published a paper entitled "After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” in the London-based Journal of Medical Ethics. Consider these quotes from their paper: "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.' " "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." The authors conclude this way: "what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is [permissible], including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.
In countries where a child can be aborted at any time during the pregnancy-and such countries do exist-their conclusion means that any infant could be killed for any reason after birth.
Two observations are in order: 1) Though the thought of killing born babies should make all sane, decent people shudder, the logic of these authors is flawless. If it is legitimate to kill someone who is unborn, why is it not legitimate to kill them after they are born? Why should a child's right to life begin at birth? It is only a change of location-a change of only a few centimetres-which differentiates between a child which, under the laws of so many countries, may be legally killed, from a child which may not be legally killed. Why should a few centimetres matter?
2) The right to kill a person has moved from the womb to the outside world. The authors assert that it is “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”. This very confusing sentence means that being a "person in the morally relevant sense" is now the criteria for a right not to be killed. Who will decide who is "morally relevant"? What traits must an individual possess to qualify as "morally relevant"? Should the "moral relevance" argument win the day, everyone under the official or practical power of the "experts" is in mortal danger-because the "experts" may draw up any arbitrary set of standards to decide who is relevant, and those who fall outside those standards will become expendable.
Our only protection against a death sentence from an "expert" is to protect all human life. Let public opinion follow science: human life begins at conception. Let behaviour follow biological fact: human conception begins with sexual activity. Let sex be saved for marriage so that all new human life enters the world in the context of love and life-long committment.
Article at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html#.T1BQUf8_LUs.mailto
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
