Medical Ethicists Raising The Stakes

Many of you know that my concentration as both an undergraduate and graduate student was Medical Ethics. I came to it naturally, really. My hero, my grandmother, was a nurse, and practiced up into her mid-70′s. And, I was a Philosophy major in college. My advisor was the Medical Ethicist for the State of NC, so a natural progression for me to go into that area. At the time, my focus was on Senior Citizens after watching the patronizing, condescending way the nurses treated my grandmother when she landed in the hospital one time. She who resembled a Marine Drill Sergeant more than anything else, who had been the charge nurse for years and years, and who was still most definitely sharp as a tack.

But with Medical Ethics, one has to be prepared for any number of issues to arise, including while I was at Union, in NYC. Many people don’t realize this, but NYC has the largest gay population in the country, and when AIDS hit, it hit there HARD. I was in graduate school at the time. And AIDS was the focus of my Master’s thesis, especially since a number of my friends at Union were, sadly, diagnosed with the disease.

And so, it always catches my eye when I see Medical Ethics discussed in the media. That was definitely the case when I saw this headline yesterday, “Ethicists Argue for Post Birth Abortions.” Wow, WHAT?? Did I really read that right? Sadly, the answer is: yes. I did, and so did you.

Now, I should state upfront what my position on abortion is. As Hillary Clinton said repeatedly during her campaign, I believe it should be safe, legal, and rare. I do not think abortion should be used as a form of birth control, but I most definitely think it should be available if the woman has been raped, a victim of incest, or if her life is in danger. Just to be clear.

The article itself appeared in the Journal for Medical Ethics, and is entitled, “After-birth abortions: Why Should The Baby Live?” This article from The Telegraph (UK) highlights who the authors are, and what their argument FOR killing newborns is:

[snip] The authors of this paper, Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva of Melbourne University, argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons”. Secondly, they say that “the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant”. Thirdly, they write that “adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people”.

In summary – and it really is this brutal – newborn babies are not actual people, ergo killing them is not immoral.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I am practically speechless at this. It is even harsher when one looks at the Abstract for this article:

[snip] 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.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I am stunned. Shocked. Appalled. And saddened that these ethicists have reached this conclusion, though Matthew Archbold, the author of the National Catholic Register article referenced above asserts this is the logical conclusion if one accepts the preliminary premise:

[snip] The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Is it? Is it just “drawing random lines in the sand”? Is the killing of a newborn the logical conclusion to abortion?

Certainly, this is a subject worthy of debate, but for the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone, ANYONE, could assert that killing a newborn is A-Okay. It turns my stomach, and honestly, it moves me to tears. As someone who would have loved to have had children, but couldn’t (ovarian cancer), I cannot imagine, cannot IMAGINE, making the decision to kill a living HUMAN being, a newborn, a baby. I mean, for pete’s sake, I can’t imagine killing any living newborn of ANY stripe, be it human or animal (or reptile, even).

Is this truly the place to which we have come? Really??