Things keep getting worse across the pond. Britain, a world leader in bioethical depravity, is edging closer to the Brave New World. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology has made an inquiry to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics to allow the active euthanization of severely disabled newborn babies. They argue that the option to actively euthanize these babies (infanticide) will promote the overall good of families by sparing them the emotional and financial burdens associated with raising these types of children, and will prevent some late-term abortions. They wrote in their submission, “We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active euthanasia as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns.”
Medical advocates are turning the moral question on its head by asserting that it would be wrong to allow certain children to live. Joy Delhanty of University College London said, “I think it is morally wrong to strive to keep alive babies that are then going to suffer many months or years of very ill health.”
Bioethics professor at Manchester University, John Harris, justified the idea on the basis of existing abortion logic: “We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?” Harris is absolutely right. The logic of those who support abortion up to birth but not immediately after birth is unprincipled. The correction, however, will not be found in permitting the killing of newborn babies as well as the unborn, but in prohibiting both.
Thankfully there are still some morally sane intellectuals left in England. John Wyatt, a consulting neonatologist at University College London spoke out against the proposal saying, “Intentional killing is not part of medical care. . . . The majority of doctors and health professionals believe that once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing into medical practice you change the fundamental nature of medicine. It immediately becomes a subjective decision as to whose life is worthwhile.”
The Netherlands have already sanctioned the practice in what they call the Groningen Protocol. There was international outrage when the Protocol was proposed. Like so many other issues, the first time it happens there is outrage. The second and subsequent occasions there is silence. So far there is silence on Britain’s proposal.
I wonder if we—both Americans in general and the church in particular—really understand what is happening in our world. Do we really understand that doctors are wanting to kill newborn babies they deem unworthy of life, and where the philosophy that allows this leads? We’re making some of the same intellectual and political moves as Nazi Germany. We want to rid our world of the undesirables: the old and sick, the unwanted unborn, and the severely disabled. It’s a pursuit of perfect humanity in a perfect world. Ideological utopias always end in death of untold millions. When will we wake up to see what is happening, and that we are allowing it to be done in the name of science? I am truly afraid for the future of our world. Moral depravity is picking up momentum. What was once called evil is now called good, and what was once called good is now called evil. God warned us of this day. It is here.
Thinking to Believe 
November 14, 2006 at 1:39 pm
I remember making a point in undergrad that everyone thought was ridiculous. The class was discussing how abortion would be better than allowing the child to be born to a mother who couldn’t care for it, who might abuse it, who didn’t want it, etc. I said, “So, why stop at the womb? Let’s evaluate all children alive today, and see if their mothers care for them. If the child is being abused or is unloved and unwanted by the mother, then lets kill the child and save it from its misery!” The class said I was being unreasonable. I wonder what they’d say now.
The same can be said about the abortion debate from the perspective of the mother. Even the courts point out that raising a child is burdensome when arguing for adoption. But so is raising a teenager! Lets’line them up and shoot them! Or better yet, let’s crack their skulls open and suck their brains out like they do in partial birth abortions!
We’ll call it “Full Birth Abortions.” Or we could stick to the traditional “Mercy Killing”–mericiful to the parents of rebellious teenagers.
If abortion is about the right to not be a parent, then parents should be able to “terminate” their chidren, born or unborn.
The last paragraph of the original post, made my neck hairs stand up. Moral depravity is indeed picking up momentum! Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus!
LikeLike
November 15, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Way to go Seni. That’s a great response when someone makes a foolish argument for abortion like that. That’s precisely the issue. If poverty, abuse, or neglect justify homicide prior to delivery, why don’t they justify homicide after delivery? What happens during birth that magically turns the baby into a valuable human being with a right to life?
I deal with these sorts of arguments when I teach on abortion. Here is an excerpt of my notes:
Objection#1—When mother’s are forced to raise unwanted children they often abuse them.
Response#1—Are you saying the best way to eliminate potential child abuse is to eliminate the potential child? The homeless are not wanted. Should we kill them? If the unborn are human beings, then abortion is the worst form of child abuse.
Objection#2—Many poor women cannot afford to raise a child (or more children).
Response#2—Are you saying we should exterminate human beings when they begin to cost us too much? Is homicide justifiable on economic grounds? Should we kill grandma when the cost for her care exceeds our income? How about toddlers?
Objection#3 I don’t think unwanted children should come into the world.
Response#3 Should unwanted hildren be permitted to stay in the world? Should we kill a two year old whose parent(s) does not want him/her anymore? The real issue is not whether the child is wanted or unwanted, but whether or not there are children in the world (i.e. whether or not it is a child), and how we treat human beings. Is the unborn a child in the world even though we cannot see them? That is the question. If we can kill a child in the mother’s womb because we cannot see them, then can I put a blanket over you and shoot you since I cannot see you?” (from Koukl’s “Tactics” video)
End excerpt…
I particularly liked the paragraph where you said, “If abortion is about the right to not be a parent, then parents should be able to ‘terminate’ their chidren, born or unborn.” Good point, and well spoken!
Jason
LikeLike