Confront the medical debate over postnatal abortion


Commentary

In November 2021, the United States Supreme Court Discussion of potentially important abortion cases.. The proceedings dealt with the constitutional validity of the gestational age law, a Mississippi state law prohibiting abortion procedures after the 15th week of pregnancy.

This case is widely regarded as a major test to solve the future of Roe v. Wade, Decided by the Supreme Court in 1973. In that case, the court relied on the implicit constitutional right of privacy to allow abortion during the first six months of pregnancy.

The right to abortion has long been a battlefield. Thus, constitutional scholars and philosophers will undoubtedly come across fascinating and repulsive related articles.

An example of such an article is “Postnatal miscarriage: why should a baby live?Was recently published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. The journal claims to be “a major journal that covers all areas of medical ethics and promotes ethical reflection and behavior in scientific research and practice.”

The authors of the article, Alberto Jubilini and Francesca Minerva, explain “postnatal abortion,” that is, why the killing of newborns should be allowed. They call it “postnatal abortion”. Because the baby was already born at the time of the abortion.

In their article, they argue that there is a serious philosophical problem if the condition that exists after birth is the same as that that exists during pregnancy. If the prenatal condition was to justify abortion, then “postnatal abortion” is also justified.

In these cases, they argue that “the facts need to be evaluated to determine if the same argument that applies to killing a human foetation can be consistently applied to the killing of newborns.” ing.

They conclude that “killing a newborn may be ethically acceptable in all situations where an abortion occurs.”

Epoch Times Photo
Demonstrators gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court when judges hear a proceeding on Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health, a lawsuit on Mississippi law banning most abortions in Washington on December 1, 2021 after 15 weeks. .. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Even if newborn babies may lead an acceptable life, their killing will be justified whenever they burden their families and society.

They distinguish between “postnatal abortion” (they are careful not to call it infanticide) and euthanasia. When euthanizing a child, killing is a response to the child’s expressed wishes, but “postnatal abortion” only considers the interests of the family and society, as the baby cannot express his or her opinion.

This article is an example of a results-oriented study that seeks to build an argument that tolerates infanticide. Infanticide is described as a form of abortion because the baby cannot bring value to his life and is unconscious, so there is no doubt that this article will be a horrifying reading.

The author’s claim to kill vulnerable and vulnerable infants can certainly be compared and inspired by the 1930s Nazi extermination handbook, which supported the killing of “valueless” people gassed in custom-built facilities, even before the war. It may have been done. The Nazi administration killed “worthless” lives, especially people with disabilities, in a stationary gas chamber disguised as a shower facility.

Specifically, the author argues that the moral “infant condition is equivalent to the fetal condition in the sense that both lack the properties that justify the attribution of the right to life to the individual.” I am.

In this context, they say: “Simply being human is not the reason for giving someone the right to life.”

The debate in favor of the killing of babies clearly sets humanity on slippery slopes because they have no consciousness or ambitious purpose, even if they can lead a productive life. To do.

Their argument is totally simplified because it denies the reality that babies are the ones who have the right to protection and care. They are burdensome to society and often require sophisticated and expensive medical care, welfare payments and assistance, ignoring the reality of easy extension of reasoning to adults and the elderly who lack identity and aspirations. increase.

In the context of euthanasia, this slippery slope has been observed in Belgium and the Netherlands, and Father John Fleming says so in his groundbreaking book on euthanasia, “Kill or Not Kill.”

For example, the 2002 Groningen Protocol can end an infant’s life with “a desperate prognosis for parents and medical professionals to experience what they consider to be intolerable pain.”

I’m worried that the author’s article has been published in a reputed journal.

Epoch Times Photo
Prolife activists hold a model foetation during a demonstration in front of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC on June 29, 2020. (AlexWong / Getty Images)

Nevertheless, I do not insist on suppressing these harmful thoughts. Doing so shows intolerance of freedom of speech. Suppressing ideas will make them deeper, more difficult, and more infectious.

However, they cannot contribute to their existence, so they need to be resolutely confronted and uncovered to reveal the ruthless claim that the foetation and the baby are not humans.

The ideas described in this article have been criticized and violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This right shall be protected by law. No one can take his life arbitrarily. “

This article, which the ratifying countries have promised to respect, does not distinguish between infants and adults. It simply refers to humans and obviously includes infants.

Similarly, the Convention on the Rights of the Child declares that “the State party recognizes that all children have the right to life.” By convention, children are under the age of 18.

The concept of “postnatal abortion” is a euphemism for infanticide. I received an email message dealing with this issue. In it, the sender states that he shared a copy of the article with many people.

He explained their reaction as follows: None of them even had an idea of ​​the concept. “

He told the recipients of the email message that the concept of “postnatal abortion” was “part of a very realistic agenda, and the discussion included the idea that some children would not. People need to wake up to it. ” It will be a burden not only to the family but also to society as a whole. “

Hopefully, the US Supreme Court will focus on this agenda and reaffirm the value of human life.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Gabriel Moens

follow

Gabriël A. MoensAM is an emeritus professor at the University of Queensland and vice president and dean of Murdoch University. In 2003, Mornes was awarded the Australian Centennial Medal by the Prime Minister for her service to education. He has taught extensively in Australia, Asia, Europe, and the United States. Moens recently published two novels, “ATwisted Choice” (Boolarong Press, 2020) and “The Coincidence” (Connor Court Publishing, 2021).