Babies are"Morally Irrevelant" So Killing Babies No Different than Abortion
As the abortion debate continues to rage on, the most important question at the center of this hot-button issue remains the same, "When does human life begin?." The answer very much depends on one's view of what a human being is. For instance, do you believe human beings deserve special dignity? Are human beings worthy of special respect? Or, is it okay to kill and eat human beings the same way we kill and eat chickens, pigs, and cows? Is it okay to enslave and use human beings the way we do horses and/or oxen? One thing is certain: the answers to these questions cannot be determined by empirical science.
Up until now, most of us believe human beings are intrinsically valuable - equal in fundamental worth and dignity - because of who we are. Not because of the transient qualities we may, or may not possess? Not because of what we can contribute to society. After all, we're human-beings, not human-doings. So, if we are intrinsically valuable because of who we are, and not because of our capacity to do things when does that unique cluster of cells that we all start out as, become a human being? Remember, the physical/materialistic is the only aspect of the human being that empirical science can confirm. Science cannot substantiate the immaterial aspect of the human being - the consciousness/ soul.
Today, in America, one in four pregnancies ends in abortion. Most of us, including myself, do not give this subject much thought because it's become so universally accepted, whether we are "pro-life" or "pro-choice". This could also signal what might be called a hardening of sensibilities, especially considering what some academics are seriously discussing and publishing. That is, the right to kill your newborn, or as they so eloquently put it, "after-birth abortion".
That's right. The Journal of Medical Ethics recently published the paper, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? Parents should have the right to kill newborn babies because they are not "actual persons". The authors argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn because their capacities to do things are the same; hence, if abortion is lawful, infanticide should be lawful.
You might say to yourself, "So what...it's not been made law." While that's true, it's important to understand that since these arguments are acceptable to publish, the implication is there is potential for societal acceptance. To be sure, The Journal of Medical Ethics rejects many more papers than it accepts.
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.As absurd as this sounds, it's not, when you really think about it. Many of those who cringe at the thought of killing a newborn, defend, tooth and nail, the right to kill that same child a few days/months sooner. They're that certain there is a difference. If a fertilized egg is not a human, then it never will be, because nothing is added to it after that time.
The bottom line is that this is just part of an overall message that becomes clearer everyday: if for any reason you are an inconvenient and/or non-productive member of society, you need to be eliminated for the "greater good". Read more...
