The Right Opinion
Whoville vs. Sparta: The Return of Infanticide
"A fetus is not truly human," say advocates of abortion. Well, according to two pro-choice ethicists, neither is a newborn baby.
"A person's a person, no matter how small," was the refrain from Dr. Seuss' famous children's story, "Horton Hears a Who!" Horton the elephant has to convince his fellow jungle-dwellers that there really are tiny people on a speck of dust. When they find out Horton is right, they're ashamed of their efforts to destroy the microscopic town of Whoville.
Well, if only modern ethicists were so ethical.
Two professors from the universities of Milan and Melbourne recently published an article in the online Journal of Medical Ethics entitled, "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?"
"We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be," write Drs. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
How do they justify this conclusion? By agreeing with what Christians have been saying all along: that a newborn is no different from a baby in the womb. But instead of accepting that both have a God-given right to life because they're human, these ethicists argue that it ought to be legal for parents to kill either at their discretion.
If reasons like cost, stress, and inconvenience are good enough to justify an abortion, say Giubilini and Minerva, then they're good enough to justify infanticide, or as these ethicists call it with a straight face, "the killing of [a] potential person."
Folks, this kind of logic isn't new. It goes back to pre-Christian Greece and Rome, where leaving babies out to die of exposure was commonplace. In the Greek city state of Sparta, in fact, it was mandatory to kill weak or imperfect infants. And in Rome, unwanted, healthy babies were routinely thrown into the river to drown.
But as Alvin J. Schmidt describes in his book, How Christianity Changed the World, it was the Church which first challenged this practice. The old images of Christians with nets fishing Roman infants out of the Tiber are as moving today as the reality was almost two-thousand years ago.
Happily, Giubilini and Minerva's article is getting a lot of attention: and exposing their deadly logic. This is a chance for the world to see abortion for what it really is: the killing of innocent human beings, whether in the womb or just born.
Many of our laws in this country are built upon the fantasy that birth, not existence, bestows a fetus with personhood. If you kill a newborn in the United States, as infamous Philadelphia abortionist Kermitt Gosnell did for decades, you go to jail. But just minutes prior, that same act of killing can be legal.
This is nonsense. I'm praying that articles from ethicists like Giubilini and Minerva will wake people up to the reality of what they're justifying.
If enough people start to get it, then it won't matter what a few academic elites think. Legal abortion will crumble before the outcry of decent, moral people, just as it did when early Christians dared to speak out against infanticide and abortion in their time.
Tell your friends about this. Press people on it. If they're not willing to condone infanticide, how can they favor abortion? Maybe they'll be willing to admit that a person really is a person -- no matter how small.

10 Comments
TAE
Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 11:33 AM
"Ethicists"? "Un-ethicists" is more like it. I remember when Diane Feinstein suggested that parents should be allowed six weeks to decide whether they wanted to 'abort' their newborn. Too bad HER parents (and the parents of those so-called 'ethicists') didn't decide to abort THEM! What a mockery of ethics and justice. SHAME on them and anyone who buys into their insanity.
Richard Ryan
Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 11:46 AM
First it is pre-birth abortion, then after-birth abortion, and next euthanasia of the elderly. I have predicted this for many years. We are becoming worse than the ordinary animal in the wild. A dog or most any other animal in the wild will go to great lengths to protect their young. Some in our so-called civilized world will apparently go to any length to kill their young. We are descending to hell on earth.Richard RyanLamar,Missouri
Sam K
Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 12:31 PM
There is a possibility is is just a strange species of devil's advocacy. It's obvious that most people, even committed pro-abortion activists, balk at the idea of killing a baby after it's been born. Establishing that there are few differences between a baby in utero and immediately afterwards is a method I would use to make someone who favored abortion rethink their opinions.
Les C
Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 2:59 PM
I agree with Sam. I'm not sure if they are actually advocating infant death, rather, they may be just illustrating the reasoning of some in a situation that is quite similar, but considered very different.
JAC
Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 3:06 PM
Don't forget that in the Illinois legislature Obozo voted to have babies that survived an abortion be left to die.
mark patterson
Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 3:47 PM
@Richard Ryan: Richard perhaps we can save the unborn and elderly and instead euthanize Socialist-Liberals.That would be a win-win for all of us!Imagine no more Obozo,Reid,Feinstein,Waters,Biden,Frank,any Kennedy,Gore,et al.Outstanding!
Marcus
Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 4:11 PM
I think it is remarkable that the focus remains on the innocent infant/fetus and not the dumbass biological malfunctions that created said infant/fetus. I've always felt that since we can identify fathers with DNA anaylsis that if said "parents" want an abortion they themselves should be euthanized as part of the process. Liberals are always yelling about equality, well, checking out with your "fetus" is certainly an equitable thing to do. As an added plus it removes those defective adult biologicals from the gene pool. If we're not going to respect all human life at all levels of development then we have no business respecting human life at any level. Like Richard Ryan says, we're already lower life forms than animals based on our lack of defense of our young.We can wish that what Sam says about an odd devil's advocacy is what those "ethicists" intend, but I doubt it. Having an advanced degree doesn't exempt you from being insane. I honestly think these guys read Jonathan Swift and thought he was serious and consider his proposal logical even if the method was a bit crude.Ah history...good to see coming around again old friend.
Capt. Call
Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 8:01 PM
There is one, and only one solution to the problems (cancer) which pervade our Nation. That one solution is to get "Back to the Bible." I will not quote a lot of verses here today; anyone who is interested can research them if they wish. The point is, that when a nation rejects the Word of God, the cancer (sin) metastasizes and the disease rapidly spreads through the rest of the body, the nation. The decay is accelerated. This is what has happened in the United States of America. I will not at this point, argue the validity of the faith of the Founding Fathers. They used what they knew to build a strong Nation, with a sure foundation, whether they personally believed in Christ or not. They used the Word of God, and they knew It's value as the beginning of personal freedoms. At what point (or points) in America's history, did this Country abandon the Word of God? Doubtless, many people will have differing opinions.One such point is very clearly displayed: the acceptance of evolutionary theory and the rejection of God's creation account in Genesis. This is the acceptance of the religion of naturalism, i.e., humanism, materialism, and atheism. Naturalism is a religion with a belief in atheism as one of it's tenets. There is no such thing as "neutral" ground. One is either FOR God or AGAINST God. Those are the only two choices that exist. Anything based on other than the Word of God, is against Him. America needs to return to using the Word of God as our Guide in everything we do, not trusting the opinions of fallible men as regarding our origins but the Word of God, the Bible. Horrors! Would scientists and the other intelligentsia lie to us?Absolutely. You can depend upon it.
Robert
Wednesday, March 21, 2012 at 12:50 PM
A historical review of death penalty executions of women in the New England colonies and the U.S. from about 1776-1900 will show that killing one's children, and even concealing the death of one's child, was a capital offense. If we were to continue the practice of English common law, it would still be a capital crime to kill your own children.
Ted R. Weiland
Wednesday, March 21, 2012 at 12:55 PM
"If they're not willing to condone infanticide, how can they favor abortion?" Abortions are infanticide!The battle against this atrocity begins with identifying it correctly. By calling it "abortion," we've already acquiesced to the opposition's terminology. Look up "abortion" and "miscarriage" in any dictionary. A miscarriage is an abortion. What doctors (and parents) do to infants in the womb is infanticide. Had Roe v. Wade been waged over infanticide rather than abortion, it would have never made it to the court room. In fact, by employing the word "abortion," Roe v. Wade was won before it ever got to court.The point being, we Christians need to stop using the non-Christians' watered-down, politically correct terms such as "abortion" and "gay." It's infanticide and sodomy. There is no power in the former terms against evil and our first mistake is in acquiescing to the ungodly's terminology.Listen to Part 1 of "Word Wars & Captive Thoughts" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/tapelist.php#T849.