by Jon Sanders
Research Editor and Senior Fellow, Regulatory Studies, John Locke Foundation
With the “right to life” inscribed in the American conscious from its very first declaration of its independence as a nation, the pro-abortionists have always pushed the “viability” argument. The concession has been one to the earliest, most primal and obvious of human ethics: it is wrong to take a life.
Feminists and leftists were always quick to excoriate anyone equating an unborn baby (which must always be called a “fetus” in order to underscore its unpersonhood) with life. Their only definition of a living baby is one who has been born — prior to delivery, the baby is nothing more than a cancer, a cyst, an unwanted growth, or in the president’s words, a punishment. Not a life. Never a life. It’s wrong to take a life.
If any supporter of life says abortion is no different from killing babies, they are roundly mocked by feminists, the left, and their allies in media and academe. It has been essential to them to condition society to view the notion of abortion being no different from baby-killing as something only an ignorant rube would say. Babies, after all, are alive. Only a rube thinks a fetus in utero is viable. C’mon, everyone knows it’s wrong to take a life.
The facade of “viability” is failing them, however, as advancements in medical science keep pushing the earliest a baby can survive outside the womb earlier and earlier into the pregnancy. Exposed for wanting to kill babies so as not to inconvenience themselves (or for even more hideous reasons), they are turning to universities to devise an ethical case for child murder.
They haven’t been disappointed. Princeton’s “bioethicist” Peter Singer takes his classes to hospitals to teach them to deny the essential humanity in undeveloped children, has told people in wheelchairs to their faces that they should have been killed, but has allowed for child-bearing for the purpose of harvesting organs.
Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
Please note that that last sentence would read no different, morally, if the phrase “abusive and threatening posts about” were removed: He said those who made the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”