Monday, July 29, 2013

"After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?I'

The publication: Journal of Medical Ethics
The date published online: 23 February 2012
The authors: Alberto Giubilini and rancesca Minevra

The abstract:
"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 cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."
Okay, you might hate me for this but here's the thing. The authors are entirely correct given the abortion-logic of these times.

I've seen comments on this article expressing horror. I'm horrified, too…except that I'm pro-life and am horrified by abortion. Period. The horror of "pro-choice" people does not impress me, God forgive me. Sin is ugly and I'm not impressed by ugliness nor am I by sin.

These two people are merely taking the abortion-logic one tiny—and I mean baby-steps tiny—further.

They are merely following the logic of those who would willingly kill an unborn baby for reasons of convenience, gender, health—you name it, they'll find a way to justify the killing.

You say you're shocked? If you're "pro-choice," this astounds me.

May God continue to bless you.