The pro-choice case for infanticide.
Here are a couple of paragraphs taken from near the end of the article which you can
read here and then go outside and punch a tree in anger that some people value life
of a child, who had no say in being born and is thus, innocent.
Proposals such as these are intended to test the audience, us, to see what reactions
result. If the reactions are less than intense and continue but for a short while they
will continue their propaganda until we become use to hearing about it and less
likely to get up in arms when it really happens. This is the way U.S. government
shoves things on us that we don’t want and has for a long time. They count on our
not being focused and not being able to carry one thought for more than a couple
of months before we shift our interests elsewhere letting them do what they
wanted from the beginning.
These after birth abortion up to three years of age or older are one of the methods
those that insist that the World’s population must be reduced by about 2.5 Billion
in rather short order so that the Earth can continue to support itself. So, be ready
for anything and everything.
“The authors conclude that “if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy,
if something went wrong during the delivery, or 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.” And it isn’t clear where the line against infanticide
would be drawn. “We do not put forward any claim about the moment at which a
fter-birth abortion would no longer be permissible,” Giubilini and Minerva write. They
doubt that “more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any
abnormality in the child.” But critics are already noting that many defects are discovered later.
In sum, the authors argue:
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential
parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus
is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant
and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then
the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the
potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.
I don’t buy this argument, in part because I agree with Furedi that something profound
changes at birth: The woman’s bodily autonomy is no longer at stake. But I also think
that the value of the unborn human increases throughout its development. Furedi rejects
that view, and her rejection doesn’t stop at birth. As she explained in our debate last fall,
“There is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms it from a fetus into a person.”
The challenge posed to Furedi and other pro-choice absolutists by “after-birth abortion”
is this: How do they answer the argument, advanced by Giubilini and Minerva, that any
maternal interest, such as the burden of raising a gravely defective newborn, trumps the
value of that freshly delivered nonperson? What value does the newborn have? At what
point did it acquire that value? And why should the law step in to protect that value
against the judgment of a woman and her doctor?”
Make you angry, I hope? What are you going to do about it? Nothing, I bet. Prove
me wrong, I dare you!