On the topic of a new.....controversy....and stupidity, if I may so boldly add: after-birth abortion. The wording used, with absence of feeling, emotion and common sense, on behalf of two philosophers, truly frightens me. Frightens me like a sociopath/psychopath does; they can seem normal, but beneath it all, are evil to the core. I've interjected a bit of commentary below, following the tasty morsels these philosophers include to propose their idea of after-birth abortion.
Let me first explain to any of you who may not know this about me: I am 100%, no exceptions, against abortion of any kind. It's my "one issue." I vote based on it. I will not budge on it, regardless, and especially not because of anecdotal evidence. I am not the creator of life and therefore I shouldn't be the eliminator of life. If there is a gray area, you err toward's life. So you can't decide if a fetus is truly a "person" at 1 day vs 1 week vs 1 month and for these philosophers even 1 day post-partum? Then choose life.
But “after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the , they :
[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.
By proposing to use their invented term in lieu of infanticide is essentially equating the two concepts. However, if you called it something prettier, it will be easier to swallow? That which we call crap by any other name still stinks. You can fancy it up, but it's still a morally reprehensible idea. Additionally, and thank you to the philosophers for scoring one for our team, by saying this after-birth abortion is justifiable by the reasons they deem abortion justifiable, also equates abortion and after-birth abortion, or infanticide if you prefer, as similar actions. Finally, they justify this behavior by the potential, not proven/guaranteed (as if that makes a difference anyway) risk to the well being of the family. What type of well-being would a family have as a result of choosing a child and eliminating it's life because the burden of a typically voluntary action is too great on the family? With this rational, I would hypothesize that issues such as bullying and teen suicide, as well as drug use and sexual activity, will all increase dramatically. Additionally, instances of eating disorders and violence, would rise. Children are already suffering from instability due to divorce and broken families. What is demonstrated by divorce is that marital love has conditions. And children draw a conclusion that parental love might also be based on something the child does and doesn't do. Imagine how a child would feel to see that a little baby puts the "well-being of the family at risk," and the potential for them to think their own choices/actions could have such dire consequences as well.
"Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life,” they write. “Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life,” such as “spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted” or “fetuses where abortion is permitted.”
I don't even have words for this statement. Wouldn't you expect to hear these words from the likes of slave traders prior to the 1900's, from Adolf Hitler, from Hilly the white righteous "lady" in the book/movie The Help, or a sociopathic/psychopathic serial killer? If God, creator of the universe, deems it necessary that our life be created, then we have reason to ascribe the right to life.
“Actual people's well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of,” they observe. Accordingly, “if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.” An after-birth abortion might be warranted by any “interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being”—including “the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption.”
It hurts my heart that children might hear these words, that Emersen could ever hear something like this and ascribe these words to me. I can't keep her ears covered and we plan to plant words of unconditional & Christ-like (not human) love in her heart and life. She HAS to know that, no matter what, God loves her. He created her, and therefore her life has a purpose. She MUST understand that we love her more than life itself. That it doesn't matter what someone says, or doesn't say, that the creator of the universe knows her name and loves her. And within our household, we will not ever allow circumstances to determine our love for her. She will not be deemed a burden because of the requirement of energy, money or care. And the idea that the psychological distress of giving up a child for adoption is less traumatic than committing infanticide is absolutely laughable. I can't fathom the turmoil involved in giving a child up for adoption - there is a bittersweet taste I would imagine, depending on the situation. But why argue for infanticide/after-birth abortion, or any abortion, on the basis of people being given a chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford? And then acknowledge adoption as an option for a child?
My favorite line of the article, by William Saleton, in his own words: "It challenges us [pro-choicers], implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t."
Well there might be a silver lining in that point being made. Praise God if, through their serious, but unbelievable, argument for after-birth abortion those who supported any abortion may realize the other side of the equation and see things from the perspective of "pro-lifers." I want the change in mind to be truly towards being pro-life, not just a weak pro-choicer or a hateful anti-abortionist. Part of the outrage I feel towards the statements made by the philosophers is the lack of respect for life behind their statements. Saying that being human doesn't give you a right to life is a dangerous comment for others than just newborns or fetuses. Too many people feel like they're "not enough," and we don't need these "educated" folks making thoughtless claims. I wish that more folks would focus less on what NOT to do and instead on what TO do. In other words, I want people to focus on being purely pro-life: pro fetus life, pro newborn life, pro handicapped life, pro addict life, pro liar life, pro elderly life, pro any person's life.
No comments:
Post a Comment