Thursday, March 1, 2012

Francesca Minerva, Dr Alberto Giubilini and after-birth abortions

Occasionally I've clashed with zealous advocates of abortion, citing the slippery slope argument that when you make something that's ethically questionable completely acceptable then people will inevitably push for extensions of it. They almost always counter with something along these lines: "We're only arguing for terminations early in the pregnancy when the foetus is not yet a person. Nobody is advocating extremely late term or after-birth abortions."

Er, well, actually they are. Ethicists Dr Alberto Giubilini and Fracesca Minerva published a creepy little article online that's outlined here:

They argued after-birth abortion should be allowed in cases when abortion would be permitted, including if a child had a defect such as Down syndrome.

Even in cases where the baby was born perfectly healthy, parents should have the right to end the life of the child if their own wellbeing was at risk.

The researchers said a newborn baby and a foetus were “morally equivalent” and both were “potential people”.

Right-to-life advocates are routinely derided as loons because they talk about abortion being "baby-killing". But surely the practice described above fits that description.

The slippery slope doesn't end there, either. Who's to say that they don't start calling certain kids, or even adults, potential people because of their low mental capacity, or even for ideological reasons. Having been around smug left-wing, deep green tossers for years on end, I know how little they think of anyone who doesn't share their nihilistic ideology. They routinely describe them as being less then human. (Not saying that they're all on the verge of committing mass murder a la Hitler or Pol Pot, mind. Just that the seeds for such behaviour are most definitely there.)

Not surprisingly, some people who have learned about the disturbing views of these quackademics are more than a tad shat off about them. A few have even made death threats.

Obviously, such reactions are way out of line. But maybe Minerva and Giubilini should ponder the possibility that these outraged zealots are actually a lot like them. Rather than arguing for the offing of infants, they see the "ethicists" themselves as mere "potential people" who don't deserve to live.


  1. I think if you investigate, Minerva and Giubilini are actually "pro-life" campaigners, and this article is a form of provocation or a sort of "slippery slope" style argument intended to provoke opposition to abortion in general.

  2. Yes the paper and the journal itself are theoretical concepts and discussions - however as a mother and someone who works with vulnerable and at risk children and families everyday the paper is self destructive. How could they not expect the angry response they've got. Theoretical or not even the implicated suggestion that killing infants should be allowed conjures hateful and sickening feelings... Not to mention that some people might take it as "permission" to committ the act - it has been done before - in one case a mother aborted her baby after deciding that she'd prefer a career instead - theoretical discussion is all good and well and innocent but put this to the public and the reaction is natural! What human can justify this is ok? Theoretically Hitler's vision and his Aryan race were justifiable... But please don't think of the millions who died in the holocaust because I'm being theoretical! Yeah- right!!!!

    1. No I think what they are doing are saying that look here are all the arguments pro choicers give for abortion and now we can apply them to new born infants by using their same standards and infanticide is the result. Basically they are asking pro-choicers how is killing a newborn babe any different than killing one just before its born?

      Yes I believe they did expect the response, but I think they were doing it for good, think now people who have previously supported abortion may change when they realise their really is nothing different than killing an infant before its born (other than it was maybe more dependent on its mother at a very early stage and less recognisable as a human) and killing an infant after it has been born.

      This may save lives and people will see that pro lifers aren't that loony after all and that if go by an abortionist view point infanticide is deemed acceptable. Their trying to get people who support abortion to take a look at what they are really doing and hopefully recognise the wrong in their ways, hopefully saving baby's lives.

      (My attempt at a shallow summary of article) "Hey guys you know how you think abortion is okay well then using your arguments for why abortion is alright (women's right, career problems, unplanned, not ready for them yet, and will burden me) then its ok killing babies just after they pop out." See I think this article isn't for pro lifers so don't get offended guys, its intended for people who are pro choice to rile them up so they really do see abortion is just as heinous a crime as infanticide (as the first commentor put it) My apologies, for this being so long and wordy but hopefully you can get the gist of what I'm saying here.

    2. These guys are doing it for good!April 6, 2012 at 6:20 PM

      Yes they want it to induce hateful and sickening feelings, even for those who support abortion so that they can see the error in their ways and instead of thinking of an unborn baby as a nuisance, fetus, non human they would instead attribute the same value to this unborn baby that they would to a new born baby because really where else can you draw the line other than at conception.

      If you say after 4 months its no longer okay to commit an abortion why? Does that baby magically at 4 months or 6 months or 7 months or two months or whatever you choose, suddenly become a human being, so one day its a fetus and okay to kill and the next its a real live innocent babe? How can we say this? And no the women should not have the right to do whatever she pleases with a baby dependent on her, what about if the baby is a girl who's taking care of that women's rights? And even if its a boy the right to life should be paramount. People have allowed themselves to be deceived and think its alright to 'terminate the pregnancy' dehumanising the baby makes it easier for them to cope with, but afterwards they can suffer regret for the rest of their lives.