The Journal of Medical Ethics prints many articles that illustrate vividly just where many members of the increasingly radical bioethics movement would take us. Most recently, it published an article stating that infanticide should be permitted–regardless of the health of the baby–if it serves the best interests of the concerned adults. From the Abstract for, “Afterbirth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”:
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.
So, if a woman has a mixed racial affair, she and her same race husband should be able to prevent gossip and embarrassment by killing the baby? (I know of one such case, although the woman wasn’t married, she aborted simply because she didn’t want to have a mixed race child.) Heck, if the baby’s life is worth so little, let’s harvest her organs and give them to those babies whose parents want them to live.
As just one other example of many I could give, the Journal of Medical Ethics also published an article claiming that scientists should be able to remove the kidneys from people diagnosed with PVS–denigrated as merely “living cadavers”–and transplant in pig organs in the place of their own organs to test the safety of pig-to-human xenotransplantation. And it isn’t “just” the Journal of Medical Ethics. Look at all the “respectable” bioethics journals that have published outright advocacy to allow doctors to kill for organs.
This doesn’t mean the law will accept come to accept the premise–although it could–this is precisely how the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious started, with articles in bioethics and medical journals. The point is that such arguments are deemed respectable in bioethics, which would reject racist or homophobic advocacy out of hand.
Or to put it another way, too often bioethics, isn’t. On the other hand, to be fair, the ancient Romans exposed inconvenient infants on hills. These authors may want to take us back to those crass values, but I assume they would urge a quicker death.
HT: Bioedge
Update: Here is the link to full article
February 25th, 2012 | 1:44 pm
Abortion and euthanasia have always been about the right of someone else (usually a medical professional of some sort) to kill. The public face advocates put on the issue is women’s rights and the right to die and all that, but it’s just a facade. It’s about the right to kill.
February 25th, 2012 | 3:46 pm
Another good reason on why we should view all human life with dignity and respect – from conception to natural death… As soon as we get that basic notion, these ‘enlightened’ ideas would be rebuffed as quickly as they should. Shameful.
Big Don Reply:
February 25th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
@JoyfromIllinois, If someone receives transplanted organ(s), and dies years later, is that a “natural” death…?? Or is “natural” the death that would have occurred without the transplant(s)…??
February 26th, 2012 | 2:28 am
OT — Hey Wesley, don’t miss this one…
http://zocalopublicsquare.org/thepublicsquare/2011/11/30/how-doctors-die/read/nexus/
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 26th, 2012 at 10:48 am
Not relevant. Doctors should look in the mirror as often patients aren’t told how onerous these interventions can be. Bring it up in a relevant place. Thanks.
February 26th, 2012 | 7:50 am
Before accepting a pagan world and routinely practiced abortion and infanticide, early Christians were openly pro-life and assume an attitude of respect towards beings and unborn babies.
Under Roman law the father had absolute authority over their children. Not only could if they wanted to destroy the embryo in the womb of the mother but also kill the newborn baby if it was not to his liking. Similarly, for the Greeks all individuals were subordinated to the welfare of society, so that legally accepted abortion and infanticide as a method to regulate the population. Neither the Roman law and Greek philosophy recognized that each individual is a person possessing inalienable dignity.
There was one exception: the Hippocratic oath.
February 26th, 2012 | 8:23 am
These are not crazy bioethics, once we reject the social kingship of Christ any degeneration is possible:
Cesar Vidal Manzanares:
Infanticide was common not only in the classical world, but also fully
tolerated and legitimized. Seneca regarded the fact drown the children in the
at birth as being provided with right and, of course, the idea of
that should keep the life of an unwanted child caused a revulsion
directly. In this regard, it must be remembered that Tacitus denounced as a practice
“Sinister and disturbing” that the Jews condemned as “a sin to kill
to an unwanted child “(Stories, 5, 5). It was not, of course,
exceptions. Plato (Republic, 5) and Aristotle (Politics 2, 7) had
infanticide as a recommended policy measures to be followed
the state.
Of course, children abandoned or killed after birth belonged to both
sexes, but so ostentatiously preferred, this sad fate rested with
females or the sick. [...] Recent excavations have failed to
clear that the dozens of children thrown to their deaths in a city
Mediterranean at the time the vast majority were females. Than men
demographically women exceed a ratio of 131 to 100 in the
Rome and from 140 to 100 in Italy, Asia Minor and Africa was only
consequence of which no consideration was socially toward sex
female. Could he be otherwise when the family was rare
within it accepted more than one child? According to an archaeological study
by Lindsay, six hundred families studied in one of the cities
the rule only six-that is, 1 per 100 – had more than a daughter.
[...]
The position of early Christianity to abortion and infanticide
soon became an open complaint addressed to the highest levels
the empire.
(César Vidal, The legacy of Christianity in Western culture, col.
“Espasa-today”, ed. Espasa-Calpe, Madrid 2000)
February 26th, 2012 | 8:23 am
[...] Wesley Smith at Secondhand Smoke, an abstract of a journal article printed in The Journal of Medical Ethics [...]
February 26th, 2012 | 8:27 am
In fact the justification of infanticide is not the Journal of Medical Ethics, but Singer’s mentor: the Episcopal priest Joseph Fletcher. This guy, the father of situation ethics said that Christian morality was to abolish the “law” by “love” curiously at the end of his life he acknowledged atheist. Themselves supporters of euthanasia say that if we can kill unborn children, we kill other human beings. In an article published in 1973 in the American Journal of Nursing, Joseph Fletcher considered “ridiculous” granted ethical approval to end a life “subhuman” by abortion while not pass the end a life “subhuman” by the positive euthanasia. “If we have a moral obligation to end a pregnancy when amniocentesis reveals a terrible abnormality of the fetus also have an obligation to end the hopeless misery of a patient suffering from cancer, when a scan shows a situation of metastasis advanced in the brain. ” (Quoted by http://www.vidahumana.org/vidafam/eutanasia/opinion_eutanasia.html).
It was through the Catholic Church imposed its beliefs the world became more civilized so due to Christian influence was banned in the 365 inmates condemned to be devoured by animals in the circus, Pope Damasus condemned the heinous torture and cruel, in the 382, Pope Nicolas abolished torture in Bulgaria in 866, Gregory VII banned the burning of witches in Dinamarca.El Pope Urban VIII in a letter to his nuncio in Portugal from 1639 absolutely condemns slavery and threatened with excommunication, but referred to the Indians and the Jesuits was powered per Reductions to the incursions of Brazilian frontiersmen who made raids on them for slaves.
Clement XI in the early eighteenth century gives orders to the nuncios in Madrid and Lisbon to act to achieve an end to slavery.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 26th, 2012 at 10:40 am
Fletcher was a wild man utilitarian who had been an Episcopalian priest but lost his faith many years before dying. There was nothing he couldn’t justify ans I write in CULTURE OF DEATH. Singer, whom I often call “Son of Fletcher,” took the utilitarian mindset and expanded it to include animals.
February 26th, 2012 | 10:11 am
For how long have pro-lifers argued that the arguments for abortion argue for infanticide and that the last flailing argument for abortion, personhood theory, especially does so? This is why Barack Obama supports fourth trimester abortions. He thinks it the mother doesn’t want the child, she shouldn’t be burdened with him or her even if there’s nothing of what they see as a “defect.” She didn’t want it so she shouldn’t have to have it. Next up are others who are those who are very dependent upon others. If we haven’t already, we’ll someday see abstracts like this talking about abortions in the 250th trimester for the elderly or perhaps people who no longer wish to take care of their special needs kids or parents.
February 26th, 2012 | 11:22 am
I confess that when I first read this abstract from the Jounal of Medical Ethics, I thought it was a satire or a provocation by an anti-abortion writer. I thought that the writer was saying that if abortion is morally licit, then so is infanticide, and therefore abortion must be morally illicit. But no. The authors’ logic is the reverse: if abortion is licit, so is infanticide, therefore infanticide IS licit. I fear that someday this latest enormity of life-denying thinking will be so prevalent, that it will no longer occur to the reader that it may be satire. “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”
February 26th, 2012 | 11:54 am
“Son of Fletcher”! LOL. I guess it’s not funny, but that turn of phrase made me chuckle.
February 26th, 2012 | 8:18 pm
Well Wesley, my step daughter just delivered our first grandchild less than two hours ago from at St. Mary’s hospital in Reno, NV where I am sending this comment from. As I watched this beautiful little girl being cleaned up, be checked over, hold onto her daddy’s hand, I thought of this post and couldn’t help but think how monstrous anyone suggesting what the abstract cited in this post truly is for suggesting that we can disposed of these precious kids. Who the hell does anyone think they are to think we can do this? I think anyone postulating stuff like this should be met with knuckle sandwiches and should be put in a mental hospital. What evil has come over us where we think we can snuff out someone’s existence because they don’t meet our expectations or because of the “burden” or claims, inconveniences they put on us? What kind of monster would suggest killing a new born instead of adoption because adoption might not be good for the mother et al? What kind of social/psychological pathology has come over our culture that this can ever be suggested? What has happened to our country where language like this is tolerated and such monsters can possibly raise this subject without the invective, ridicule and unlimited scorn? These people are what Chuck Colson calls barbarians in blue suits and they should be institutionalized and warred against. Shame on the United States for electing such a barbarian and smooth talking monster who supports 4th trimester abortions to the office of president of the United States.
February 26th, 2012 | 11:29 pm
“Abortion and euthanasia have always been about the right of someone else (usually a medical professional of some sort) to kill.”
Exactly.
“Pro-choice” makes perfect sense, when you understand the “choice” involved is the “choice” of the mother or the doctor – as to how they “choose” to classify a humanoid creature.
They will “choose” whether it is a person or just a thing.
What other living organism is classified in such a manner?
February 27th, 2012 | 9:24 am
There’s a zeitgeist in play here. The culture of death rests on a profound loss of hope in the future that in turn rests on a widespread loss of connection to the Divine. I can’t help but think of P. D. James’ 1992 book, Children of Men. It’s about a dystopian world where no child has been born for 18 years because everyone has become sterile. It’s a disturbing book and while the movie is not as compelling, it’s worth a look, too. We’ve not been rendered physically sterile, but a sad emotional and psychological sterility is reflected in proposals for infanticide. If I were not a Christian I would be tempted to dispair.
February 27th, 2012 | 5:43 pm
[...] Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn’t mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth abortions [...]
February 27th, 2012 | 6:01 pm
[...] Wesley J. Smith says that this sort of thing is not uncommon in bioethics. [...]
February 27th, 2012 | 7:28 pm
[...] Pruden is giving the same article one more go around at Second Hand Smoke. Even he seems tired of writing about [...]
February 27th, 2012 | 7:30 pm
[...] Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn’t mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth [...]
February 27th, 2012 | 7:55 pm
[...] Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn’t mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth abortions [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 1:57 am
[...] Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn’t mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth abortions [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 3:13 am
[...] Wesley Smith notes a recent Journal of Medical Ethics article in which the authors argue that infanticide should be legal and label killing newborns “after-birth abortion.” [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 7:32 am
[...] Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals. [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 7:59 am
[...] Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals. [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 8:30 am
[...] Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals. [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 10:14 am
[...] Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals. [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 10:52 am
Posted by Wake Up! on Tuesday, Feb 28, 2012 10:47 AM (EST):
Does no-one get the feeling that the two academics behind this are anti-choice and have written the paper as a feeble attempt to equate killing a healthy newborn (which undeniably has the same rights as any other human) to the termination of a fetus (which clearly does not)?
The basic premise that newborns somehow have no rights is flatly untrue. I’d guess that the authors don’t even come close to proving point 1.
It’s funny to see the zealots on both sides gnashing their teeth at what seems to be academic trolling.
Also: the two ‘academics’ look to be in their early 20s.
I call shenanigans.
pentamom Reply:
February 28th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
@Wake Up!, “(which clearly does not)?”
This is not equally so clear to everyone else as it is to you.
February 28th, 2012 | 12:45 pm
I’m a Christian and my 87 year old father was. He had pancreatic cancer and was given 6 months to live. He came home and we had Home Hospice care for him with me being the main person here at my house. The rules were no force feeding of food or water. My father agreed and so did I. He lasted one solid week in Home Hospice then he died. Is this what people are against when they talk about these subjects? I would love to hear other persons outlook on this. My brother and sister didn’t agree with the no food and water being forced rule. They told me they didn’t believe in that. They are both Christians. They didn’t help me take care of him.
February 28th, 2012 | 1:11 pm
[...] Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals. [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 1:39 pm
[...] ethicists. And Wesley J. Smith, the prominent American bioethics attorney, says bioethics now contians no ethics whatsoever. Or to put it another way, too often bioethics, isn’t. On the other hand, to be fair, the [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 2:51 pm
[...] Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals. [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 4:11 pm
The current trend in the JME couldn’t possibly be connected with the fact that Prof Julian Savulescu has recently become the editor could it?
Verbal engineering such as “after birth abortion” is so pernicious. I think we should in future always refer to late abortion as “antenatal infanticide” in future to ensure we keep the balance.
February 28th, 2012 | 4:12 pm
The word spelt incorrectly in the submission just clicked should of course have been
engineering – please correct this if you post
Thanks
February 28th, 2012 | 4:18 pm
[...] Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals. [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 5:26 pm
[...] been made before, in support of procedures that are now deemed morally acceptable. Specifically, First Things notes, arguments such as “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious” began in much the same [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 5:42 pm
[...] http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2012/02/25/killing-baby-non-persons-all-grist-for-b… http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/02/28/infanticide-moves-off-the-fringe/ [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 6:37 pm
[...] Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals. [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 7:02 pm
[...] Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals. [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 11:02 pm
[...] Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals. [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 11:16 pm
[...] Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn’t mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth abortions [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 11:39 pm
These people are sick [word I can't use 'cause it would be deleted] Seriously, there isn’t any other term for them.
February 29th, 2012 | 1:12 am
[...] Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals. [...]
February 29th, 2012 | 10:05 am
[...] Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals. [...]
February 29th, 2012 | 7:45 pm
[...] the Journal of Medical Ethics called “After Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”–which I addressed here a few days ago–is getting a lot of attention in the blogosphere. So, I decided that I would move past the [...]
March 1st, 2012 | 12:44 pm
[...] HT: Wesley Smith [...]
March 1st, 2012 | 1:08 pm
[...] Ugledni bioetičar Wesley J. Smith primjećuje da je rasprava oko “upornog i nesvjesno prava na dehidraciju”, koja je na kraju dovela do događaja kao što je slučaj Terri Schiavo, započeta s člancima iz bioetike i medicinskih časopisa. Više o slučaju Terri Schiavo [...]
March 2nd, 2012 | 4:26 am
[...] [...]
March 2nd, 2012 | 8:20 am
[...] Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn’t mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth abortions [...]
March 2nd, 2012 | 2:07 pm
[...] Szanowany bioetyk Wesley J. Smith zauważa, że debata wokół “prawa do odwadniania trwale nieprzytomnych ludzi”, która prowadzi do wydarzeń, takich jak przypadek Terri Schiavo, zaczęła się od artykułów na ten temat w czasopismach bioetycznych i medycznych. [...]
March 2nd, 2012 | 4:54 pm
[...] Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals. [...]
March 3rd, 2012 | 1:02 am
[...] Wesley J. Smith, neves bioetikus megjegyzi, hogy „a huzamos ideig öntudatlan állapotban lévő emberek dehidratálásához való jog” körüli viták, mint Terri Schiavo esete, szintén bioetikai és orvosi folyóiratokban megjelent, a fentihez hasonló cikkek eredményei. [...]
March 3rd, 2012 | 9:39 am
[...] Respected bioethicist Wesley J. Smith notes that the debate surrounding “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious,” which eventually led to events like the Terri Schiavo case, started with articles in bioethics and medical journals. [...]
March 3rd, 2012 | 10:09 am
[...] Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn’t mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth abortions [...]
March 25th, 2012 | 1:32 pm
[...] Respekterte bio-etiker Wesley J. Smith noterer at debatten rundt «retten til å dehydrere vedvarende bevisstløse«, som etterhvert førte til hendelser som Terri Schiavo saken, startet med artikler i bioetikk og medisinske tidsskrifter. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact