Dr. Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini released an article to The Journal of Medical Ethics where they were quite blunt on how to approach life going forward. It’s almost refreshing to hear people speak frankly on the side of death. Here is what they say:
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. 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.
Author Matthew Archbold broke it down quite nicely about how abortion creates a slippery slope in terms of morality and what exactly qualifies as a life worth saving.
The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.
An ethicists job is like a magician’s. The main job of both is to distract you from the obvious. The magician uses sleight of hand to pretend to make people disappear. But when ethicists do it, people disappear for real.
It’s almost a pro-life argument in that it highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument.
It also shows how far ethicists would go and exactly what their mentality is. The pro-abortion argument typically states that when a baby is in the womb it is not a baby yet, even if it is a form of life. Here they are asking when does a person actually become a person? What about a mentally or physically handicapped baby? What if they allowed it to live but it’s grown up as an under-advanced toddler. Are they a person or a non person?
Essentially, they are asking what value the non person could ever bring to society. Once we go further down this road, it is also something the elderly should start considering. Generations of people have now been brainwashed into thinking the previous generations were not as smart as them. So, if someone is old with allegedly outdated views and limited physical capacity, are they a person or are they a non person?
At the same time you have Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC ripping Ron Paul calling him a fake libertarian, talking about women’s rights or equal rights, as if that has anything to do with it. Even if it did, what does that even mean–the right to act like irresponsible men? The right to kill off the STD (AKA fetus-life-non person) before it grows and interferes with their irresponsible selfish ways?
There are many ‘pro-choice’ people running around thinking they have this issue tackled correctly in their minds, when in fact they could simply be an enlightened conversation away from blow-your-mind revelations. I know this because I used to take a ‘neutral’ stance on abortion, thinking there were two sides to consider. Now it seems a person has to be a psychopath or brainwashed to think it’s okay to kill (non person, person) life that can’t defend itself. We know there are plenty of bad teachers in our society (Internet, TV, School, Radio, Magazines) and about half of America is falling short on this one subject alone.