The Blaze spotlights an article in the latest Journal of Medical Ethics by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva in which they argue that killing newborns should be acceptable practice when the impact of the baby’s life on its family is deemed… I’m not sure which word to use here… “unacceptable?” No, there’s no such definitive adjective offered here. “Inconvenient” is as accurate as I think it gets. Giubilini and Minerva are arguing for - and they make no pretense otherwise - for killing babies when their existence inconveniences the family, or when the cost of providing care for them would be “excessive”:
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.
The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
For more, see: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/28459
No comments:
Post a Comment