Wednesday, April 18th, 2012
Last August, I wrote about The Partial-Birth Abortion, in which a person chooses to give birth to one twin but abort the other. Yes, it was pretty shocking to learn that’s a real thing and that this occurs has often as it does.
But that’s so 2011. With a new year comes a proposal from Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, who in the Journal of Medical Ethics, promote the idea that if an infant is born alive under circumstances which would have justified an abortion, then a “post-abortion” should be permissible.
The obvious question is this: How is aborting a child after they are born any different than outright murdering a newborn?
It used to be that a “mother’s rights” (pro-choice term) overruled a fetus’s “right to life” (pro-life term).
But now, the technically of passing through the birth canal may no longer be enough to justify survival of an infant in danger of being aborted. At least, if Giubilini and Minerva have their way, that could be the case.
It just seems too hard to believe this is an actual discussion taking place right now. I doubted the legitimacy of the conversations I was reading on Facebook about it; but then I read this well-crafted article in Slate magazine, asking why if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t.
I would like to assume this will never become a reality. I would like to assume that we as a civilized nation wouldn’t have to ever lobby our government leaders to ban a post-birth abortion. Do we really need a law to tell us this is wrong?
Every person has a moral code. We all decide in our own minds what is considered right and wrong; moral and immoral.
So I’m pretty curious, are there actually people reading this right now who support the concept of a post-birth abortion?
Don’t let me hog the stage. Don’t let me be a bully here. Please, step up and defend your case.
I’m very curious to hear an opinion other than my own very obviously biased one.
Post-birth abortion and infanticide: The difference Is…