Pre­med­i­tated mur­der of new­borns

Ethics askew when dis­patch­ing ba­bies seen as morally equiv­a­lent to abor­tion

The Washington Times Daily - - Nation - By Rep. Christopher H. Smith

Late last month, two bioethi­cists — Al­berto Gi­u­bilini and Francesca Min­erva — pub­lished an out­ra­geous “pa­per” in the Jour­nal of Med­i­cal Ethics jus­ti­fy­ing the de­lib­er­ate, pre­med­i­tated mur­der of new­born ba­bies dur­ing the first days and weeks af­ter birth.

Mr. Gi­u­bilini and Ms. Min­erva wrote “when cir­cum­stances oc­cur af­ter birth such that they would have jus­ti­fied abor­tion, what we call af­ter-birth abor­tion should be per­mis­si­ble.”

If a newly born child poses an eco­nomic bur­den on a fam­ily, is dis­abled or is un­wanted, that child can be mur­dered in cold blood be­cause the baby lacks in­trin­sic value and, ac­cord­ing to the pro­fes­sors, is not a per­son.

Mr. Gi­u­bilini and Ms. Min­erva wrote, “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.”

As any par­ents — es­pe­cially moms — will tell you, chil­dren in gen­eral and new­borns in par­tic­u­lar re­quire enor­mous en­ergy, money and boat­loads of love. If any of these are lack­ing or pose what the au­thors called a “threat,” does that jus­tify a death sen­tence?

Are the lives of new­born ba­bies so cheap? Are ba­bies so ex­pend­able?

The mur­der of newly born chil­dren is fur­ther jus­ti­fied by Mr. Gi­u­bilini and Ms. Min­erva be­cause new­born in­fants, like their slightly younger sis­ters and broth­ers in the womb, “can­not have formed any aim that she is pre­vented from ac­com­plish­ing.”

In other words, no dreams, no plans for the fu­ture, no “aims” that can be dis­cerned, rec­og­nized or un­der­stood by adults means no life.

This pre­pos­ter­ous, ar­bi­trary and evil pre­req­ui­site for the at­tain­ment of le­gal per­son­hood is not only bizarre, it is in­hu­mane in the ex­treme. Stripped of its pseudo-in­tel­lec­tual un­der­pin­nings, the Gi­u­bilini and Min­erva ra­tio­nale for mur­der­ing new­borns in the nurs­ery is in­dis­tin­guish­able from the mo­tive of any other child preda­tor wield­ing a knife or gun.

The au­thors say the de­val­u­a­tion of new­born ba­bies is in­ex­tri­ca­bly linked to the de­val­u­a­tion of un­born chil­dren, and is in­deed the log­i­cal ex­ten­sion of the abor­tion cul­ture. They “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. . . . Whether she will ex­ist is ex­actly what our choice is about.”

These anti-child, pro-mur­der ra­tio­nal­iza­tions re­mind me of other, equally dis­turb­ing rants from highly cre­den­tialed in­di­vid­u­als. Prince­ton Univer­sity’s Peter Singer sug­gested a cou­ple of years ago, “There are var­i­ous things you could say that are suf­fi­cient to give some moral sta­tus [to a child] af­ter a few months, maybe six months or some­thing like that, and you get per­haps to full moral sta­tus, re­ally, only af­ter two years.”

James Wat­son, No­bel lau­re­ate for un­rav­el­ing the mys­tery of DNA, wrote in Prism mag­a­zine, “If a child were not de­clared alive un­til three days af­ter birth, then all par­ents could be al­lowed the choice only a few are given un­der the present sys­tem. The doc­tor could al­low the child to die if the par­ents so choose and save a lot of mis­ery and suf­fer­ing. I be­lieve this view is the only ra­tio­nal, com­pas­sion­ate at­ti­tude to have.”

In like man­ner, Fran­cis Crick, who re­ceived the No­bel Prize with Mr. Wat­son, said, “No new­born in­fant should be de­clared hu­man un­til it has passed cer­tain tests re­gard­ing its ge­netic en­dow­ment and that if it fails these tests, it for­feits the right to live.”

The de­hu­man­iza­tion of new­borns isn’t new but it’s get­ting worse.

Mr. Gi­u­bilini and Ms. Min­erva’s ar­ti­cle must be a wake-up call. The lives of young chil­dren — an un­pro­tected class — are un­der as­sault. Hard ques­tions need to be asked and an­swered, and de­fend­ers of life must mo­bi­lized. We have a duty to pro­tect the weak­est and most vul­ner­a­ble from vi­o­lence. As law­mak­ers, we must strive for con­sis­tency. Why do so many who claim to be pro­po­nents of hu­man rights sys­tem­at­i­cally de­hu­man­ize and ex­clude the weak­est and most vul­ner­a­ble hu­man be­ings from le­gal pro­tec­tion?

Why the mod­ern-day surge in prej­u­dice and ugly bias against un­born chil­dren and new­borns? Why the pol­icy of ex­clu­sion rather than in­clu­sion?

Why is lethal vi­o­lence against chil­dren — abor­tion and pre­med­i­tated killing of new­born in­fants — mar­keted and sold as be­nign, pro­gres­sive, en­light­ened and com­pas­sion­ate?

Why have so many “good peo­ple” turned a blind eye and looked askance as moth­ers are wounded by abor­tion and ba­bies in the womb are pul­ver­ized by suc­tion ma­chines 20 to 30 times more pow­er­ful than house­hold vac­uum clean­ers, dis­mem­bered with sur­gi­cal knives or poi­soned with chem­i­cals? Look­ing back, how could any­one in this House or Se­nate, or both pres­i­dents Obama and Clin­ton, jus­tify the hideous pro­ce­dure called par­tial-birth abor­tion?

Since 1973, more than 54 mil­lion ba­bies have had abor­tion forced on them. Some of those chil­dren have been ex­ter­mi­nated in the sec­ond and third trimester, suf­fer­ing ex­cru­ci­at­ing pain as the abor­tion­ist com­mit­ted his vi­o­lence.

Why are some sur­prised that the new emerg­ing class of vic­tims — new­borns — are be­ing slaugh­tered in the Nether­lands and else­where, while a per­verse pro­posal to mur­der any new­born child — sick or healthy — is ad­vanced in an oth­er­wise se­ri­ous and re­spected ethics jour­nal?

Chil­dren — born and un­born — are pre­cious. Chil­dren — sick, dis­abled or healthy — pos­sess fun­da­men­tal hu­man rights that no sane or com­pas­sion­ate so­ci­ety can abridge.

The pre­med­i­tated mur­der of new­born ba­bies is be­ing jus­ti­fied as morally equiv­a­lent to abor­tion.

Congress, the courts, the pres­i­dent and so­ci­ety at large have a sa­cred duty to pro­tect all chil­dren from vi­o­lence, mur­der and ex­ploita­tion. We don’t have a mo­ment to lose.

IL­LUS­TRA­TION BY HUNTER

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.