Saturday, 24 March 2012

Liverpool Care Pathway – A Moral Lassitude

A moral lassitude is infecting society...

What follows is an extract from a paper published by the Journal of Medical Ethics:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva

J Med Ethics published online February 23, 2012
doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100411

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.

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for
the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an
abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of
the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has
any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the
same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the
killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of
a newborn.

It is an old ploy to keep floating an idea that, thereby, it may cease to appear so novel and extreme.

Thus does the outrageous gain plausibility and acceptance, by becoming almost tiresome by its very mention.

It slips in under the radar, a fifth column of ideas that are no longer foreign to our concepts of right and wrong simply because they have permeated our very consciousness and infected our moral outlook, a dark cancer in our soul.

But, really, can they be serious about this? It’s a sick joke… surely!

This is infanticide.

No comments:

Post a Comment