Well, after vomiting thoroughly and crying for a while, I’m ready to rant! 

Let’s begin with this article at the Weekly Standard, which discusses an article entitled “After-birth Abortion:  Why Should The Baby Live?” that was written by medical ethicists and printed in the “esteemed” Journal of Medical Ethics last month.  (The original article has been pulled from Internet access since the date it was published.)

The argument made by the authors?—?Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, both of them affliliated with prestigious universities in Australia and ethicists of pristine reputation?—?runs as follows. Let’s suppose a woman gets pregnant. She decides to go ahead and have the baby on the assumption that her personal circumstances, and her views on such things as baby-raising, will remain the same through the day she gives birth and beyond.

Then she gives birth. Perhaps the baby is disabled or suffers a disease. Perhaps her boyfriend or (if she’s old-fashioned) her husband abandons her, leaving her in financial peril. Or perhaps she’s decided that she’s just not the mothering kind, for, as the authors write, “having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children, regardless of the condition of the fetus.”

The authors point out that each of these conditions?—?the baby is sick or suffering, the baby will be a financial hardship, the baby will be personally troublesome??—??is now “largely accepted” as a good reason for a mother to abort her baby before he’s born. So why not after?

“When circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.” (Their italics.) Western societies approve abortion because they have reached a consensus that a fetus is not a person; they should acknowledge that by the same definition a newborn isn’t a person either. Neither fetus nor baby has developed a sufficient sense of his own life to know what it would be like to be deprived of it. The kid will never know the difference, in other words. A newborn baby is just a fetus who’s hung around a bit too long.

As the authors acknowledge, this makes an “after-birth abortion” a tricky business. You have to get to the infant before he develops “those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.” It’s a race against time

Oh, yes, by all means…we must eliminate this human being before any claims of awareness can be made.

But they don’t stop there, of course.

The inversion that the argument entails is Swiftian?—?a twenty-first-century Modest Proposal without the cannibalism (for now). Jonathan Swift’s original Modest Proposal called for killing Irish children to prevent them “from being a burden to their parents.” It was death by compassion, the killing of innocents based on a surfeit of fellow-feeling. The authors agree that compassion itself demands the death of newborns. Unlike Swift, though, they aren’t kidding.

They get you coming and going, these guys. They assume?—?and they won’t get much argument from their peers in the profession?—?that “mentally impaired” infants are eligible for elimination because they will never develop the properties necessary to be fully human. Then they discuss Treacher-Collins syndrome, which causes facial deformities and respiratory ailments but no mental impairment. Kids with TCS are “fully aware of their condition, of being different from other people and of all the problems their pathology entails,” and are therefore, to spare them a life of such unpleasant awareness, eligible for elimination too?—?because they are not mentally impaired. The threshold to this “right to life” just gets higher and higher, the more you think about it.

The left has just revealed in all their hideous glory how determined they are to define what “right to life” means within our society.  They are the “elites”.  They are the “intellectuals”.  They are the ones in their own self-defined wisdom who possess the ability to address such issues.  What’s more, they even admit as much in the apology that was posted at the Journal of Medical Ethics, just before the article was pulled into oblivion and hidden from public eyes.

“We are really sorry that many people, who do not share the background of the intended audience for this article, felt offended, outraged, or even threatened,” they wrote. “The article was supposed to be read by other fellow bioethicists who were already familiar with this topic and our arguments.” It was a thought experiment. After all, among medical ethicists “this debate”?—?about when it’s proper to kill babies?—?“has been going on for 40 years.”

Now, for the rant…

I’ve never, ever, called anyone an idiot before in my entire life.  No matter how disgusted I might be or how foolish and ignorant I believed their opinion to be, I just didn’t do it.  But these people are idiots of the highest degree!!!  Dangerous idiots!!

Let’s take a second and think about IPAB, or the Independent Patient Advisory Board that is included in ACA, otherwise known as Obamacare.  If the left is allowed to define for us who does and/or does not have the “right to life”, then they could use this as an excuse to eliminate (although the proper word should probably be exterminate) anyone they choose.

They could stipulate that an amniocentesis is required for any and all pregnant females, for the purpose of drawing genetic material that might identify any genetic defects of the child, and they would be in the position to determine whether or not that child lives or dies.  In such a case, abortion could be mandated.

They could stipulate that human beings who have what would be defined as “special needs” would not be allowed the “right to life”, and that care for these human beings will be prohibited under the law.

They could stipulate that anyone who suffers a traumatic injury that would require highly-intensive specialized health care for long periods of time are not “productive members of society” and therefore should be denied the “right to life”, and provision of care for these citizens would be prohibited under the law.

The list just goes on and on and on the hideous crimes against humanity that could be perpetuated under the guise of “providing for the general well-being of the public”.

Conservatives, we have to get organized against this!  We have to make sure that we are educated and aware as to the facts of any and all efforts being made by the left attacking our freedom to even live and breathe in this nation of ours!

There is only one website that I’m familiar with that contains information about legislative measures that are being pursued to protect all human beings in this nation of ours from the pro-death agenda (and we are now to the point that we can’t call it anything other than “pro-death”) of the left.

http://www.nrlc.org/  (National Right to Life Committee)

If you know of other sites or if there are groups you are aware of that are attempting to play an active role in protecting and preserving the right to life of all citizens in our country, please share that information in the comments.

Thank you for reading.