Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.
“Every city in this “civilization,” as they call it, has more chimneys than Adolph Hitler could have ever dreamed of. Women have been taught that removing a fetus—the dehumanized name for just a baby, as you must always demonize your enemy and dehumanize your enemy—”getting rid of a fetus is just like getting rid of a wart,” they say. That’s what all of us have become, just removable disposable tumors.” – Extract from Alan Watt’s Blurb “Modern Mythological Enemies Versus the Man in the Mirror – Psychological Projection in the Scientific Era” July 4, 2007. (www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com)