|Tuesday, 06 March 2012 00:00|
We've often referred to the 'slippery slope' - if you allow some abortions, thenÂ before long, there is pressure to liberalise the law and allow even more abortions. That's what we've seen in Victoria - with abortion now allowed up to birth for any reason.
Recently two Melbourne academics - Alberto Giubilini of Monash University and Dr Francesca Minerva, of the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne - went aÂ step (or two)Â further. They talked about 'after-birth abortion' in an article which was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
KilingÂ a baby after it has been born. Although they first talk of killing disabled babies after birth, they move on to talk of the killing of healthy babies after birth - based on looking at the mother's or family's needs.
They say, well, if you can kill a healthy baby BEFORE birth by aborting them, why is it any different AFTER birth?
In contrast, we would respond, of course, by saying that BOTH are wrong.
The editor of the Journal, Julian Savulescu, defended the printing of the article, saying they had a right to express their view. He also noted the view is 'not new'.
For instance, another man who was at Monash, Prof Peter Singer, has also advocated infanticide in his writings.
Read these commentaries critcising the article:Â Â
Baby â€˜abortionâ€™ argument is crossing the line - Andrew Bolt.
Ethicists Argue in Favor of â€˜After-Birth Abortionsâ€˜ as Newborns â€™Are Not Personsâ€™ - The Blaze, Feb 27, 2012.
â€˜Journal of Medical Ethicsâ€™ Stands by Publication of â€˜After-Birth Abortionsâ€™ Article - The Blaze, Feb 28, 2012.
Article Advocating â€˜After-Birth Abortionâ€™ Mugs Liberals with Reality -Â American Thinker, March 5, 2012.
Infanticide again- Bill Muehlenberg, 28 Feb 2012.Â