http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full
First let me say a few things before I post MY thoughts on this article.
1. I may not be as well "educated" in the sense of the level of academics I have achieved, as the authors of this article...BUT sometimes well educated people are still idiots.
2. I haved mixed emotions on responding to this absurd proposal. On the one hand, it is so "OUT THERE" that I don't want to waste my time arguing something so absurd. But... I also see the world in which we live; and I see that we need to stand up for what is right, because even the crazy, absurd things are happening and becoming acceptable more frequently.
Here is my response to this article:
The authors use a lot of "if-then" type statements to justify what they are saying, so I will continue with that type of reasoning.
1. IF the authors are wrong, and "right to life" is granted by God at the beginning of a human being's life as written in the Bible, THEN they are guilty of proposing murder; as society is already killing life before birth, now they want to add to that - life after birth.
WHAT IF at the end of their "actual life" they find a reality that was dismissed as impossible because they leaned on their own logic? WHAT IF they find themselves surrounded one day by the "actual eternal life" of thousands/millions of babies that were killed because of this foolish reasoning? These lives that WILL continue in Heaven with Jesus...a man who lived an actual life on this earth, and is the ONLY way, truth, and life...Jesus who offers forgiveness to them NOW as well as anyone else who is willing to give their life to Him rather than try to keep it for themselves...Jesus who offers forgiveness to even those who take the life of another human being. BUT...although He gave His life for us to have eternal life with Him - we MUST accept Him as the One TRUE God and the only way to Heaven. WHAT IF...they don't trust God rather than themselves...WHAT IF one day they find themselves face to face with the reality that they were wrong and the life that they helped to destroy? WHAT IF they find themselves face to face with the God of this universe who says "why should I let you into Heaven, why didn't you accept My Son, and why did you not protect "the least of these" but rather promoted their deaths"?? Some may argue that this is "MY opinion"... my response - If they are right and I am wrong, then I am a fool... BUT... if I am right, and they are wrong, then they are promoting a society of murder. My faith is in Jesus Christ and His Word, not in myself - not in my logic or reasoning; and most definitely not in their reasoning!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egtm0XwShOc
I had to start with the Bible - because it is the only real truth, the only absolute.
Now...as to the article:
Quote: "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."
Response: (1) to say that fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons is the opinion of the authors. This article is their attempt to "prove" their theory, but they fall VERY short of proving this statement! (2) A fact is something proven true - no one can "prove" as a "fact" that a newborn, a fetus, or an embryo is NOT an "actual person" (term used by authors). (3) to say that "adoption is not ALWAYS in the best interest of actual people - is to say that it IS SOMETIMES in the best interest of "actual people". I will discuss this more when coming to certain phrases I want to cite, but initially, let me say this - "I am an actual person, so are all of my children, and all of my children are adopted. Furthermore, ALL of my children would be defined by these authors' definition as children not worthy of life. My 8 year old twins were adopted as embryos...I gave them nothing more than a human womb to grow in, I contributed nothing to their genetic makeup, I simply allowed them to continue growing inside my womb. Then, after they were born, I continued to care for them as any loving mother does. At what point along the way did they go from being "a clump of cells" to a "fetus" to a "newborn" to an "actual person"? Even the authors state they can not determine at what point a person becomes an "actual person" according to their opinions. We have legal terms given per stage of development. At least the authors don't try to argue that they are "human beings", but they do go on to say that some animals are "actual persons" but newborns, fetuses, and embryos are not?!?! REALLY??? Lauren wants to be a ballerina and a dolphin trainer. Tyler loves to dance and says it is one of his gifts. They have ambitions, so I guess that makes them "actual people" now. At a 9 week ultrasound Tyler was seen turning flips, and Lauren was extending her arms and legs. Can anyone "PROVE" that Tyler and Lauren were not purposefully moving - perhaps dancing? I personally think they were just moving around, but...I can't PROVE that. Madison was adopted through the foster care system. You know, tax dollars had to pay us about $300 a month to buy her diapers and clothes and toys and a bed and a car seat and a stroller and all the other things babies need. A waste of tax payers money vs the life of my child?? I can tell you this for certain - I (an actual person) LOVE my children VERY much! And they are NOT an accident!! They are NOT less valuable to me, to God, or even to society because of the way their lives began! Madison is one of the most caring and selfless people I have ever met!!! This world would have taken a considerable loss if her mother or doctors had been able to kill her at birth so that she wouldn't have to go into the foster care system. Rather than arguing that we kill these children, how about we promote a society where it is not tolerated for mothers to continue using illegal drugs when pregnant? Rather than taking 2 years to terminate the rights of parents who continue to use drugs and refuse to help their children; why not make the process faster and get these kids into loving adoptive homes??
Quote: "A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human."
Response: In a way, I agree. We shouldn't be able to kill newborns because of inconvenience to the birthmother or her family; and we ALSO shouldn't be able to kill fetuses because of inconvenince!! BUT... to try to justify killing a newborn - OH SO WRONG!!! It is wrong to take a human life. That should be understood as a basic moral and ethical statement shared by all human beings, it is very sad that society does not value the life of humans any more than society does! What's next? Toddlers, preschoolers?? Are they REALLY trying to justify killing a newborn?!?! I can't wrap my mind around abortion - I can't understand how anyone can see a baby as anything other than a baby - no matter what stage of development...but I at least expect even liberal society to protect life OUTSIDE the womb!!!
Quote: (after talking about various medical issues with newborns) "Once these children are born, there is no choice for the parents but to keep the child, which sometimes is exactly what they would not have done if the disease had been diagnosed before birth"
Response: NO, it is NOT their only choice! Adoption is another choice. And there are many loving parents waiting for children, and willing to love and raise children with medical disabilities. Again...I, being an "actual person" am one of these people. Several of my children have various medical disabilities. It does not change the amount of love I have for them. It does not change how vibrant their lives are. It does not change the value of their lives!!!!
Quote: Although it is reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is against the best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down's syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’.3 But, in fact, people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.5
Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.
Response: So...they are saying that abortion (and the killing of a newborn) are justifiable if there is a medical complication that will affect that child's life. WHO are THEY to get to make this determination??? They go on to even admit that some children such as those with Down's Syndrome go on to live happy lives. BUT because of the "unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care." they try to justify killing these children either before birth or after birth. So, going off of that logic - should we kill everyone on any form of government assistance? Get food stamps, then you aren't worthy to live?? On disability - your life is not worth living because you cause a burden to society??? REALLY??? THIS is their argument? Again, there are MANY people willing and eager to adopt children with disabilities - sometimes this comes with some form of government assistance, and sometimes it does not. I am willing to say that I would rather see society "pay for" the healthcare of children born with medical disabilities that to fund missions to Mars, or even scientific research that takes the life of human embryos but has yet to provide REAL, usable results!!!!
Quote: In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise 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. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.
Response: So they are calling it "after-birth abortion" rather than "infanticide" because in their opinion the newborn has no more moral status than a fetus. Science does define the 2 differently - basically fetus being prior to birth and newborn or neonate being "after birth". They can call it what they want - but the taking of a life is the taking of a life. Abortion, infanticide, or after birth abortion...all end with a human being that was alive ceasing to be alive because another human being did something to cause that life to cease. Again - I can not understand how anyone can be "ok" with the taking of an innocent human life - pre or post birth...but I would at LEAST expect even the most liberal person who claims to have ANY morals or ethics about them to AT LEAST protect life after birth. Not that "I" see any difference - a life is a life; but it bothers me GREATLY that these professors are trying to take this to the next level - now they are proposing that we not only be able to kill babies BEFORE they are born, but now they are going to argue that we can kill them AFTER they are born too!!!! And again - their main reasoning behind all of this is for convenience!! So society doesn't have to pay money towards them, so mothers don't have to live with their child - OR give their child up for adoption!!
Quote: Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.
Response: What if the newborn is crying because he/she is cold and wants to be made warm by a blanket or warmer? What if the newborn is crying because he/she is hungry? Aren't they "wanting something?" Isn't that the same as "forming an aim"? Or perhaps forming an aim means "what you want to DO with your life"...hmmmm - I changed my mind several times during college - I guess I wasn't an actual person yet??? If a newborn wants to be held, loved, fed, made warm and you kill it - aren't you taking away from that person what he or she was wanting, hoping for?
Quote: The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.
Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.
Response: They may take "person" to mean these things, but what if they are wrong? What if "person" means "any human life"? I wouldn't want to be in their shoes if they are wrong.
Also - How do they know that a newborn doesn't want to die? How do they know that they are not taking away something very valuable to that person? Newborns may not be able to talk, but they certainly know when they are hungry, or need a diaper change. Doesn't being a human being mean anything any more??? The value of human life is set in that person being a person - a human is what makes a person a person! Not how smart they are. Not how healthy they are. Not what their hopes, dreams, and ambitions are. Not how wealthy or poor they are. HUMAN life IS HUMAN LIFE - it is that simple. People can try to justify it any way they want, but if it is human and if it is alive - it is worth protecting becuase we should value human life!!!
Quote: This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. .
Response: Really? Some non-human animals are persons, but newborn human beings are not??? "Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life". YES IT IS!!!!
Quote: Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal
Response: Human embryos (such as my twins once were in a lab facility before being placed in my womb) deserve to be protected. It is time for us to stand up for what is right, and stop letting the envelope of "when/what is a life" be pushed further and further!!!! Fetuses where abortin is permitted - same thing, this may be legal, but it doesn't make it right. Human embryos and human fetuses can not be compared to criminals on death row. Certainly both are human beings, but the difference is that those on death row have been found guilty of a crime and sentenced to death - human embryos and fetuses have been found not worthy by a negligent society and sentenced to death!
Quote: Our point here is that, although it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a ‘person’
Response: If you aren't sure...shouldn't we err on the side of caution??
Quote: a necessary condition for a subject to have a right to X is that she is harmed by a decision to deprive her of X. There are many ways in which an individual can be harmed, and not all of them require that she values or is even aware of what she is deprived of. A person might be ‘harmed’ when someone steals from her the winning lottery ticket even if she will never find out that her ticket was the winning one. Or a person might be ‘harmed’ if something were done to her at the stage of fetus which affects for the worse her quality of life as a person (eg, her mother took drugs during pregnancy), even if she is not aware of it. However, in such cases we are talking about a person who is at least in the condition to value the different situation she would have found herself in if she had not been harmed.
Response: So...it is ok to steal from someone as long as they don't know about it??
I am confused - are they saying it is OK for a person to be harmed by a mother doing drugs during pregnancy because that person is not aware of it?? Or are they saying that is wrong?
If they are saying it is ok for a mother to harm her unborn child by doing drugs during pregnancy, they are contradicting themselves because they argue that these children are born with medical problems that society then has to pay for and we should just kill these children either before they are born or after. Why would they argue that it is ok for a mother to do drugs while pregnant - because the baby isn't aware of what the mother is doing, or rather the consequences it will cause? Is it because their answer to the problem is that we just kill these kids?? How sick is that?
If they are saying that it is possible for a person to be harmed unaware by being victim to substance abuse prenatally, and that is wrong - then wouldn't it be logical to say that it is wrong to kill a newborn who doesn't know you are about to kill him/her?? Both cases cause harm to a human life that is not able to protect himself/herself. Shouldn't we put our time, money, and effort into helping people rather than promoting prenatal substance abuse and killing of newborns??
Quote: And such a condition depends on the level of her mental development,6 which in turn determines whether or not she is a ‘person’.
Response: So "mental development" determines whether or not a person is a person. Was Albert Einstein more of a person than Martin Luther King Jr? Most people wouldn't disagree that Einstein is seen as an icon of intelligence - yet Martin Luther King Jr is seen as an icon of peace... is Einstein more worthy of life? Was his life more important? Can we really say that any person's life is more valuable than another? Absolutely NOT!
There is SO much more I want to say about this - but I need to go take care of my children (thank you to my husband who is a loving father and has been caring for them while I typed this much).
If I felt as though this article would be dismissed for the absurdness it represents - I would not be nearly as angry as I am. BUT... we are letting our society come to this! These are professors in colleges that are reputable!!
Human life is morally and ethically worthy of being protected simply because it is human life! It is a sad day that a Journal of Medical Ethics publishes something like this!
