Abortion, Infanticide, and Euthanasia: The Slippery Slope of Moral Desensitization

Written by:

Published on: April 18, 2015

In February 2012, the British Journal of Medical Ethics published an article entitled After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live? by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. The article contended that newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life.”

Arguing that “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,”the authors essentially rationalized that since both a fetus and newborn are essentially helpless, uninvested blank slates who are unable to work a fast-food job, we have the right to kill them.

“Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons,” they wrote, “but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life.”‘ The two academics also maintained that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

There was something of an outcry when the article was published, but not what we might expect in America, since the Oxford-affiliated principals were UK-based. The authors, Giubilini and Minerva, are former associates of the journal’s editor, Australian Prof. Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics. Savulescu complained that the article’s authors received death threats in the weeks following the article’s publication, saying that those who made abusive and threatening posts (online) were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

A liberal society. Keep that phrase in mind…

As we know, Britain and Europe are much farther along than America in terms of moral degradation and the progress of secular socialism. Read up on Savulescu and one discovers that this bohunk – excuse me – Australian of Romanian extraction, is essentially a eugenicist (and yes, I think that advocating infanticide merits the ethnic slur). In addition to editing the Journal and running the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Savulescu traipses around the world promoting his desolate, but very liberal new moral orthodoxy.

Which, one may be horrified to learn, is a common practice among many internationally-renowned scientists, whether or not they’re in the field of medicine or biomedical research.

I’m addressing this because of the political left’s rapidly-increasing exertions on many fronts, including the provocation and exploiting of racial tension, promoting the militant homosexual agenda, attacks on religious freedom, and others. All of these have been calculated to deprive Americans of their liberties; the practices of abortion and infanticide, no matter how morally-compromised physicians and scientists manage to spin it, deprive individuals of their lives.

It is a slippery slope indeed, going from the deceitful arguments of the early 1970s as to how innocuous legalized abortion in America would be, to where the British and Europeans are now, largely accepting ever-widening latitude in the dehumanization of their citizens. Bear in mind that such “choices” as Ceausescu – I mean Savulescu – offers, like parents opting to euthanize a newborn with Down Syndrome, are only the beginning. What if the parents don’t determine until the “defective” kid is five years old that they simply can’t deal with the crushing demands of raising and providing for it?

Well, reading farther along in the Giubilini-Minerva article, we discover that their criteria for euthanizing children is even broader than anomalies which remain undiscovered until birth.

Further, not only does the scope of parents’ “choice” to kill their children inevitably increase to include more and more “troublesome” traits, but the scope of the State’s power to influence or even compel these outcomes is augmented as well.

Smart guys like Savulescu typically don’t think about the implications or applications of their Frankensteinian intellectual musings. They must have a lot on their minds…

Getting to our progress on this particular slippery slope here in America: We got the opportunity to ho-hum the account of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who murdered untold numbers of babies (although he was convicted of murdering only three) in his squalid, petri dish of an abortion center in Philadelphia – that’s if we even saw the story, as poorly as it was covered by the press.

As recently reported by Liberty Unyielding, the anti-abortion group LiveAction has come out with a series of hidden-camera videos that show workers at Planned Parenthood clinics conspiring to arrange abortions for underage females with what they presumed were child sex traffickers.

The videos were shot at Planned Parenthood facilities in six U.S. cities, and show workers supplying confidential birth control, STD testing, and secret abortions to underage girls and their “traffickers.”

If we as Americans have become so desensitized to the sex trafficking of underage girls or the wholesale murder of the unborn that we do not respond with demonstrable outrage, then we ought not be surprised as our professional health care workers and distinguished, respected medical and scientific icons advance this culture of death more and more as it benefits them economically and professionally.


Don't forget to like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SonsOfLibertyMedia.com.
Check out Sons of Liberty Polls on LockerDome on LockerDome
Comment via Facebook
Comment via Disqus