The Slippery Slope to Infanticide
One’s first instinct, after the initial shock and sheer, visceral disgust, is to disregard the argument put forth by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva in their paper, “After-birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” But, I think that would be a mistake. This is not some random rant on an anonymous website from the outer reaches of the blogosphere. This is a scholarly paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics; a respected, peer-reviewed academic journal that covers the field of medical ethics. No, it should not be ignored. If anything, I think this piece is something of a trial balloon, perhaps even a moral anesthetic of sorts, shocking us initially, but getting the idea out there in an attempt to numb us into slowly accepting the premise that a newborn baby is not a person.
So, what exactly are Giubilini and Minerva proposing? Here is the abstract from their paper:
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.
First of all, if you are offended by harsh words, you may not want to read any further. This piece will be filled with the kinds of words that I would take my kids out behind the wood shed for using. But, the use of these words is necessary to illustrate the problem at hand. First, the set up: Sandra Fluke is a thirty year old (not twenty-three, as reported) liberal activist. She graduated from Cornell University in 2003 with a degree in feminist, gender and sexuality studies. Fluke then enrolled in Georgetown Law School with the express goal of overturning the school’s health insurance policy exemption on birth control. Fluke is the co-president of the Georgetown chapter of Law Students for Reproductive Justice. And, it is thanks to this, that she was called to testify before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee hearing on women's health and contraception.
The end game here, of course, is the Obama Administration’s attempt to force religious institutions like Georgetown, a Catholic school, to cover the health care costs of things they find morally repugnant, like birth control. Under ObamaCare, things like one’s religious conscience take a back seat to unhindered access to condoms and birth control pills. The definitive protection of religious freedom provided by the first amendment is being over shadowed by the ever-expanding “emanating penumbras” of sexual freedom. read more »