The Bio Ethics of "After-Birth Abortions" aka Murder?

In late February, two bio-ethicists published a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics which advocated “after birth abortion”.  This is a euphemism for an act which is more commonly known as murder.  Part of their argument was that the justification for an abortion of an unborn child could be just as valid when applied to the abortion of a newborn child.  I’d like to see this idea get spread beyond an obscure medical journal, because I agree.  In both cases the justification for the death of a child is equally valid, in other words, not at all.

Even so, I’d like to see the idea advanced because it is clearly a case of turning up the heat a little too quickly on the proverbial frog in the pot of water.  A lot of people have been swimming around as the water has gotten progressively warmer: accepting abortions, accepting later term abortions, accepting partial birth abortions to protect the mother’s life, and accepting partial birth abortions to protect the more broadly defined mother’s health.  But this is too big of a step and more people would jump to the cause of life.  

It would simplify the debate, though.  It would end the deliberate deceptions, and we could stop arguing about masses of tissue, when life begins, and viability.  There would be no reason to object to mandatory ultrasounds.  Everyone could openly agree that it’s a baby. The “choice” position would be that it doesn’t matter that it’s a baby, and the “life” position would be that that’s exactly what does matter, and a few more people would finally understand the horror of what we've been talking about.
                                               ~ Rob


image: flickr:  License Some rights reserved by Chris. P