I totally agree with Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, the two Australian bio-ethicists who assert, in an article published in the online edition of the Journal of Medicine, that a fetus and newborn are the same. And that, if a fetus can be aborted, a newborn can also be “terminated.”
Where I totally disagree with Giubilini and Minerva is that “after-birth abortion” should be lawful.
In their article, the bio-ethicists argue, “Merely being human is not itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.” They add, “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 permitted.”
They have a point there. We live in a society where the harvesting of stem cells for research is considered perfectly acceptable. Where abortion-on-demand is considered a fundamental right, though it appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution.
And while I make a distinction in innocent life – the pre-born, the newborn – and unredeemed life – mass murderers, serial killers, terrorists – I would be willing to abandon my support for capital punishment in favor of life without parole if it meant no more research on “spare embryos,” no more abortion of fetuses.
While I find the views of Guibilini and Minerva repugnant, I also believe they have performed a service: For their ethical and intellectual defense of so-called after-birth abortion is not far off from those who support pre-birth abortion.
While abortion-rights advocates acknowledge the human origin of fetuses and embryos, they maintain that the pre-born have no right to life. The Austrialian bio-ethicists acknowledge the humanity of the newborns, but they similarly claim that newborns have no right to life.
So, it stands to reason, if post-birth abortion is murder, as even those who consider themselves “pro-choice” agree, then pre-birth abortion must also be murder.