The Logical End of Abortion

Abortion is an evil in the society that we live in. It is evil because it promotes ideas and assumptions that are contrary to the idea that human life is sacred and made in the image of God. Apart from that, once you logically permit abortion of human fetuses in your mind as a justifiable position, you are forced to conclude the same about other ideas as well. What ideas you ask? Alberto Giubilini,and Francesca Minerva are philosophers and ethicist from the University of Milan, Italy and the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. They teamed up to produce a paper called After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? it can be found here. In this paper they make the argument that since it is morally acceptable that a child can be terminated prior to birth, it is also morally acceptable that a child be terminated After Birth Also.

While I have used this argument numerous times in the past with debates with persons who support the termination of fetuses, they usually say that the baby has a different status once it is born. The paper makes the case that it doesn’t mean a thing. Here is the argument:

  1. Both fetuses and newborns do not have the “same moral status” as actual persons,
  2. 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.

Lets break it down one by one.

Both fetuses and newborns do not have the “same moral status” as actual persons

An “Actual Person” is defined by Giubilini as an organism that has “aims”. This allows Giubilini to distinguish between a baby and a fetus from a dog or a teenager. For a baby and a fetus can be said not to have any goals or desires. While a dog may be said to “want” things. This makes the newborn a “potential person” and since a potential person cannot be harmed if killed (because it has no aims or wants or feelings, thus it would not care if it was killed) it would then cause no harm to anyone to terminate a potential person.

The problem with this argument from a humanist perspective would be nil. However, from a Christian perspective this poses many problems. How does one determine if a person’s life isn’t worth living? How can we truly say that living in a world with unexplainable pain gives a person the right not to live? Jesus Christ took upon himself humanity, which was arguably a larger degree of “shock” than it is from a normal human being to one who has to go through intense daily suffering. How does a person terminate another person’s right to comprehend salvation? What about the fight for the right to live?

The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an
existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does
not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims.(p.2)

Lets restate that in the contra-positive: to bring a new person into existence allows the person to accomplish their future aims.

The problem is that if you do not allow abortion, you allow future people to accomplish their aims. Though if you do not allow these people to come into existence, they will not have any aims. Not only does it not take into account the aims that God might have for a person, but it negates the would be aims of individuals and ascribes them to zero. Isn’t a world where more people had aims, goals and dreams more desirable than a world with fewer of these?

By the way, if a person is defined not by simply being human but by “aims” then many non-human beings would be considered “persons” and should be afforded the rights that human persons enjoy.

I do appreciate that Giubilini does bring up the fact that some people with sever mental disabilities do report to be happy, but then the argument is brought up about the burden placed upon the families. This “unbearable” burden that some people have to carry is one that these philosophers feel is far more desirable to get rid of than to keep for the sake of a person’s life. Galatians 6:2 says “Bear one anothers burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.” It is the duty of society to bear each others burdens when they are unbearable for any one of us. We are are brother’s keeper.A Sure, we should avoid suffering as much as possible, but we should not allow another person (potential or otherwise) to perish so that we can be conformable.

Culture of Death

The above idea is one that is apart of what I call our “culture of death”.

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.(P.2)

The above practices should be shunned because they all have one idea (which was something that I did not see before), that the human being by itself has no value.  (As a side note, in war, people do have value and they have the right to fight for their lives, but that’s a different story).

Proverbs 8:36 But he who sins against me injures himself;
All those who hate me love death.

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.

The claim is made that there is much psychological harm in adoption because unlike murder, you might still wonder where your child is and you never receive the acceptance that there isn’t anything you can do about it so you’d better move on. What I say is that it doesn’t matter how uncomfortable you are: the fact that a person is living and growing and has the potential to be happy is worth more than the pain you’re going through. And I say that with much care. Our culture of convince is leading to a culture of death. WhereA those who can’t defend themselves (the potential people) are being trampled underfoot by non other than their parents.

In closing, Abortion leads to infanticide. The ethicist have shown that killing a baby is no different that killing a fetus.A As a Christian, I’m committed to exposing the lack of dignity for human life that is implicitly preached by the practice of Abortion.

-Spencer

Published by

Spencer Sims

Engaged in producing content and applications for the upcoming generation of consumers. A Computer Science and Mathematics student that is passionate about programming and empowering people to become leaders. Lives to glorify the name of Jesus! Also founder of this blog.

One thought on “The Logical End of Abortion”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *