OHMIGOSH. I have the funniest story. Seriously, you are going to die laughing. So picture this, my best friend and I are driving, and he said something that, I thought, was a little rude. We often tease each other, but this was over the line. I sat and stewed about it for a minute and then I decided to take action, so I took out my gun and shot him in the face. HAHAHAHAHA!!!! You should have seen how surprised he looked just before I pulled the trigger!!! It was hilarious. I was all…what? You don’t think it was funny I shot my friend in my car?
Okay, picture this. Same scenario, we are driving, he says something, I stew, as I’m dropping him off I decide to take action and I run over him with my car. HAHAHAHAHA!!! You should have seen his face just as I slam into him. It was so…what?!?! You’re not happy with that story either? In the first story I killed him in my car, in the second I killed in outside the car. There is a HUGE difference here. Oh, oh, wait? It’s not where I killed him that bothers you, it’s that I killed him. OHHHH…well, you are going to hate the rest of this article.
Before I launch into this, I know this isn’t my most “timely” article. I try to do things a little more current. I have just been super busy the last few weeks (actually I have being “normal” busy, I’ve just been wearing a cape.) A few weeks ago (February 23, 2012) the Journal of Medical Ethics released an article entitled, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” (Ironically the 23rd is my birthday). Apparently the two authors Alberto Giubilini, and Francesca Minerva are a little shocked over the negativity they have experienced, because of their paper.
This is from the abstract of their paper:
“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.”
OHHHH YEAH!!! What could possibly go wrong with this line of thinking? I read every word of the paper, and let me tell you, there is not enough hand sanitizer in the world to “de-ibby jibbies” me. I really want to patent “brain bleach” for this type of article. They conclude their paper with:
“If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.”
My question is where will it lead? What about the elderly? “Grandpa, you don’t want to be a burden on society do you?” What about the mentally handicapped, or borderline handicapped? They don’t really contribute that much to society, do they? What about the fat and lazy? What if we could make it so that everyone who isn’t blond haired and blue eye just went away? Oh wait, all my kids have brown eyes…well…as long as it fits the “criteria” (social, psychological, economic), and is better for society. Sorry kids.
What’s their problem with adoption? Well, it is better to perform an “after-birth abortion” (apparently the word “murder” was already taken) because, “Birthmothers are often reported to experience serious psychological problems due to the inability to elaborate their loss and to cope with their grief,” where as, “those who grieve a death must accept the irreversibility of the loss.” Well, isn’t that cute?
Professor Savulescu, from the University of Oxford responded with, ”What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited … Proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat.”
Ohhhh, oh, I see, “proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat.” Now it could be these “ethicists” have evolved WAAAAY further then me, it could be I’m a little “Forrest Gumpy” because (imagine this in a Forrest Gump voice,) “I’m notta smort man, Jen-knee”, but in my humble opinion, I would say that statement proves you can be educated beyond your intelligence. You know what, yeah, they have probably evolved further (Oh no, should I be worried about being a candidate for a future “death panel”?).
Now, I sincerely believe everyone is entitled to their opinion. And it bothers me people have threatened death threats. I don’t understand the mentality of bombing anything to make a political point. That line of thinking is stupid, but on a purely “proper academic discussion and freedom” way of thinking, it is ironic that they are upset people are threatening them when they are discussing killing others. Just saying. All I know is, I want to be there when karma comes back to punch them in the face… Just in case she needs help.