Last Sunday’s sermon at Emmanuel Evangelical Church in London was on the subject of abortion. Since the release of the Planned Parenthood videos has made this something of a hot topic over in the US in recent months, I thought it might be helpful to mention a couple of things that arose during the sermon itself and in the subsequent discussion.
A couple of people expressed surprise (no, actually astonishment) at the article whose abstract I quoted during the sermon. The article from the 2012 Journal of Medical Ethics is available online, and is entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” In it, the authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva expressed the view that what they 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.” Since the article is frankly almost unbelievable, perhaps it might be helpful to quote the abstract in full:
“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.”
Perhaps predictably, Giubilini and Minerva faced a barrage of criticism for their views. Indeed, they even reportedly received death threats from pro-life activists, which are of course no more morally justifiable than the threat to human life posed by abortion itself.
In response to the uproar, the authors protested that they had been misunderstood. For example, Minerva insisted that she herself is “against infanticide”, and that the article is “theoretical and academic … not a proposal for law” or even “an expression of her personal views.”
At least two responses might be made at this point. First, Giubilini and Minerva are simply pressing the logic of abortion-on-demand to its logical conclusion. It has always been obvious (at least, it should have been) that there is no ethically significant difference between the status of an unborn child and a newborn child, or for that matter an unborn child and a person of any age. If it’s OK to kill one, it’s OK to kill the other. The article therefore highlights the moral incoherence of the vast majority of pro-abortionists who claim to be against infanticide whilst still insisting that it’s OK to kill the child a few minutes before its first cries are heard. There is no conceivable morally consistent justification for being against infanticide if you’re also in favour of abortion-on-demand. Giubilini and Minerva’s position has the merit of logical consistency, and thereby reveals the full horror of what the pro-abortion arguments have always implied.
Second, Giubilini and Minerva’s article does not (to me, at least ) appear to distinguish between the authors’ personal views and the conclusions of their professional ethical reflection. As I read it, it looks to me very much as though they believe (or believed, at least, at the time of publication) what the article itself says.
Of course, it is perfectly possible that they didn’t express themselves clearly, or perhaps that they have subsequently changed their views. In this case, it would be simple indeed for them to clarify their position even at this late stage. They would simply have to declare, publicly and unequivocally, that they are opposed not only to “after-birth abortion” (infanticide) but also to (pre-birth) abortion, regardless of the grounds, except in cases where the death of the child is the unavoidable and unintended consequence of an attempt to save the life of another human being (e.g. emergency surgery for ectopic pregnancy). Any medical ethicist willing to make a statement like that could be assured of a warm reception among those (including of course many doctors) who still believe all that old-fashioned stuff about how it’s the job of those serving in the medical profession to save life, not to kill.
