We not infrequently hear an admonition against taking a
particular action because doing so is the first step down a slippery slope that
leads to disaster, or at least to some negative situation.
Over the last several decades we have seen a steady decline
in what once was called “morality,” a concept increasingly regarded as
something from the Stone Age; senseless restrictions hampering the good times of no rules and no responsibilities.
Perhaps it is a natural human reaction to want total freedom
to do as one pleases, but wisdom and past experience show us that a society cannot
succeed without some rules. However, social rules do not carry fines or jail
time; breaking the rules brought only shame and having people whisper as you
walked by. And as more and more people chose to ignore certain rules, the
whispering faded out and the rules and the stigma attached to them gradually disappeared.
Without significant social penalties, the predictable results
of casual and often careless sex increased, the most serious being unwanted
pregnancy. Back in the day, when a female got pregnant, usually she had the
baby and became a mother, and the male involved became a father. But that was
inconvenient for one or both parents, so along with the loosening of sexual customs
came a relaxed sense of responsibility for one’s actions, and unwed mothers and
absentee fathers grew in number, along with children put up for adoption.
But having a baby you didn’t want was inconvenient for the mother,
so abortion that was once used only when medical conditions warranted, such as
when the health of the mother was at risk, became after-the-fact birth control.
Abortion advocates argue that a fetus, at least in the early
stages, is not a human being, only a mass of cells. Therefore, relieving the
woman of this tumor-like inhabitant is not killing a child, because it is a “nonviable
tissue mass,” not a child. The
determination that a fetus is not a child is based upon the unresolved question
of just when the fetus becomes a person: at conception, at viability (however
that is defined) or at birth.
Now, two
Australian ethicists – Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in
Melbourne, and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy
and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne – have provided an answer
to the question: it doesn’t matter. They argue in the latest online edition of
the Journal of Medical Ethics that if
abortion of a fetus is allowable, so, too, should be the “termination” of a
newborn. This is what can happen when you climb onto that “slippery slope.”
And
what is the philosophical, ethical justification for what once was considered
cold-blooded murder? “[If] circumstances occur after birth such that they would
have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be
permissible.”
In
the abstract to the article Giubilini and Minerva explain that “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.” The authors say that
adoption is not a viable alternative “because the mother might suffer
psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption,” but not from
killing it, apparently.
In the enlightened 21st century, merely being
human does not mean that humans have an actual right to life.
Our two ethicists
conclude their article: “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.” Being a newborn, you see, is just another stage along
the way to becoming an “actual” person.
In their intellectual wanderings through the amoral desert,
the authors discovered that there are “actual people” and persons who are not “actual
people,” but merely “potential persons.”
Only a few decades ago this discussion would never have
gotten out of the padded room in which it was hatched; today it is considered reasonable,
perhaps even enlightened.
However, when a newborn is expendable on the whim of its
mother, for any reason or no reason, and is considered less important than some
endangered critter like the Clanwilliam Redfin, the Zerene Fritillary, or the Coffin
Cave Mold Beetle, how long will it be before “no longer viable persons” with some
disease, a mental or physical disability, or who are merely too old to take
care of themselves, will also be disposable?
Cross-posted from Observations
No comments:
Post a Comment