Just another step . . . Time to kill your newborn?

(Photo by Keith Galick)
Many times when people are encouraged to achieve a goal, they are advised to take it one step at a time. We are all familiar with that process. It doesn’t matter if your goal is to lose weight, pursue an education, or learn a foreign language. It’s always done one step at a time. It is virtually impossible to achieve a goal all at once or overnight. However, while incremental steps are good, beware. There is also a dark side to this process.

All of us have heard the anecdote about boiling a frog. For the sake of those who haven’t:

If you put a frog in boiling water, it will simply jump right out. But if you put the frog in cold water and slowly turn up the heat, the frog will not recognize the danger and unknowingly be cooked to death.

I think the questions that beg asking are, “When will people awaken to the fact that they are being cooked to death AND when will they learn that they are not the only victims?” Let me get to the point. The heat that is being turned up is moral decay in our world. The victims??? The victims are those too blind and deaf to realize it and little ones too helpless to speak out for themselves. Who is turning up the heat? All those who adhere to a worldview that is in contrast, conflict, and contrary to a Biblical worldview, that’s who. What is the moral decay of which I am referring? In a word, infanticide.

March 2, 2012 – An article was published by the British Medical Journal entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” At last, another huge step has been taken for those who have devalued human life . . . it has been quite a journey since Roe v. Wade. Doctors Alberto Giubilini and Grancesca Minerva have come to a startling conclusion concerning an ethical decision in the arena of abortion. They have concluded that a newborn baby is only a “potential person” and has no more right to life than an unborn child AND THEREFORE it is ethical, in their eyes, to kill a newborn.

The full article can be seen here:
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full.pdf+html

What were the first steps? Perhaps one might call them baby steps. You see, for years it was put before the general public, “It isn’t a human. It isn’t a baby. It’s just a clump of cells.” But for those with a Biblical worldview, that was never in question. Believers that adhere to a biblical standard understand the reality that life begins at conception and God is the one who “knits us together in our mother’s womb” (Ps. 139:13). We understand that each person is, “fearfully and wonderfully made.”

The movement continued with the next step. You see, no longer was the issue a clump of cells or a baby (by the way, ultrasound crushed that argument). Now the issue was women’s rights. As our president so clearly stated concerning his daughters, “No one should be punished with a baby because of a poor choice.” A woman should have the right to choose. No need to argue over justifications. They are no longer important because what you are dealing with here is a punishment. Why not have a late term abortion? As a matter of fact, why not have a partial-birth abortion? It has nothing to do with the baby’s life, right? Dr. Haskell was asked about partial-birth abortions and stated that 80% are purely elective. For those who want to protest, “This type of abortion can only be done when the health of the mother is in question,” please wake up. Dr. McMahon submitted to congress that the most common reason for partial-birth abortions is . . . depression.

But wait, there was yet another step. In January of this year, a report came out stating that abortion is 14 times safer than childbirth. Amazing. When I Googled “death during childbirth” the statistics show that the death rate for women is 12 per 100,000 and 679 per 100,000 for children. Assuming that there was not a death of a woman AND child per 100,000 that would put the death rate at 691 deaths per 100,000. That would mean that the death rate for childbirth was .691%.

So what about the death rate of abortions? Well, according to the same report, having a child is 14 times more risky for the mother. That means the death rate for women is .875 per 100,000. Assuming the abortion is successful every time, the death rate for the child is 100,000 per 100,000. So, unless my calculations are off, the death rate per 100,000 is over 100%. Consider this fact for a moment: every time a woman and child (still in the womb) walk into an abortion clinic, it is most likely that one of them is not coming out.

And now . . . as of today . . . the next step. There is no need to make a decision during the nine months of pregnancy. Now, according to the article written for medical ethics, one can have the baby, and then decide to have it killed. If your heart has not dropped into the pit of your stomach yet . . . let me put before you the conclusion written by Dr. Giubilini and Dr. Minerva.

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.

How could these doctors come to such a conclusion? Surprisingly, they are actually stating what we Christians have been proclaiming for years. Did you get that??? THEY AGREE WITH US. They just have the argument turned upside down.

Pro-life advocates have argued that the unborn child is not a clump of cells, but rather it is a baby, therefore abortion is murder and ethically wrong. Simply stated, there is no difference between killing an unborn child and a newborn child. Doctors Giubilini and Minerva agree, albeit with a twist, BECAUSE if we kill unborn babies then there is no reason not to kill newborn babies. By the way, notice that the name has changed as well. It is no longer called infanticide. It’s now termed an “After-birth Abortion.”

The abstract of the article best states what happens when one does not adhere to a biblical worldview.

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. (emphasis mine)

Well, you say, surely they have arrived at their destination. Surely there are no more steps. You would be wrong. There is another step yet to be taken and at that point, the heat is all the way up and the frog is dead. The final and imminent step that the doctors did not take was to ask the next logical question, “At what point after birth can the child be killed?” In other words, since the unborn child and newborn child are “potential persons,” at what point do they become “ACTUAL PERSONS,” and at what point would killing them be considered murder? Although these doctors did not venture this far, at the rate this argument is progressing, it is only a matter of time. Hitler might be a good resource for them on how to proceed.

Two outcomes are possible here. A crossroad, if you will. Either people will wake up to see the horrible place we have been headed toward all these years OR people will simply take another step . . . another step further from God.  So what is that next step that should be taken and who should take it?

Folks, my brothers and sisters in Christ, it is time for YOU to take the next step and now is the time to take it.  The progressive movement towards devaluing human life is no longer a theory proposed and proclaimed by the “Christian Right.”  It is right here, in black-and-white, in a credible (or maybe not) medical journal.  When this subject comes up among classroom debates and political discussions at work, why be silent?  The inevitable result is now out for all to see.  The birth of a child is no longer a line in the sand when it comes to murder.  We must be the voice for unborn infants and very soon . . . even newborn infants.  The day is coming when parents can sit in a hospital room, discuss the implications of a new child, and then call the nurse or doctor to “take care of the baby.”  It appears that the time is coming when a couple that is struggling to make ends meet or they have had yet another night in a long string of sleepless nights will be allowed to murder the infant and be protected by the law.  In due time, will it even be the choice of the parents?

Perhaps you think this will not affect you.  What about the larger picture?  If the value of a “child” is based upon self-awareness, as this article proposes, what about the elderly adult with Alzheimer’s disease.  If you think that infanticide and euthanasia do not go hand in hand, PLEASE wake up.  It is amazing how far sin will take us, step-by-step, when we attempt to ignore God and “go it alone.”  We must adhere to a Biblical worldview.  We must pray for our nation and the conscience of those who would believe this would be the correct direction.  We must do all that we can, with our voices and with our votes, in hope that others will take a step back, think about what we are doing, and hopefully change the direction.

It will not happen overnight.  It will take time.  The urgency is great, but things will not change unless we take that first step.  Be bold.  Trust in God and let’s start walking in the right direction.

Share
  1. Doug says:

    This is not a new concept, unfortunately. It became Roman law in the late 4th century that citizens could not practice “exposure”, or the leaving undesired infants in the elements to die of starvation, dehydration or disease. 1700 years ago, they justified the practice by saying that it was not murder because the parents did not actively “kill” their infants, rather the infant died of “natural” causes. Furthermore, they rationalized that the infant could be rescued by a compassionate passerby or be shown the mercy of the gods.

    In China, infanticide was common as early as the 3rd century BC. The law allowed the practice if the parents felt that they could not care for the infant, the infant was an undesired gender or the infant was deformed. They believed that a baby was not a viable human and “life” did not begin until sometime after 6 months. Sounds eerily similar. The justification of their practice came in the form of reincarnation. I suppose they felt the life was not being lost, however it was being “recycled” and was giving the baby a chance at a better life somewhere else or at some other time.

    Apparently in 2400 years, as the human race, we have not progressed. I suppose at least these “primitive, pagan” civilizations attempted to justify it, so I guess in a way we’ve digressed. To me, it just further proves that despite advances in science, philosophy, technology and our self proclaimed status as a “Christian Nation”, our need for Christ has not changed and that humans are not now, nor have ever been, naturally “good”.

    The “glass-half-full” side of me really hopes that these individuals are arguing from a converse position and are trying to expose the moral depravity of our society by taking existing, accepted practices to an unacceptable “next step”. I don’t really think that is the case though.

  2. Douglas says:

    The fact that there is even a conversation about this makes my stomach churn. I believe the author’s (in the referenced article) qualification was that if the newborn does not have the ability to anticipate the future, then “after-birth” abortion is acceptable. As I look at my own son who is 10 months old (and can not anticipate the future), it truly saddens me that a peer-reviewed journal would not only find it acceptable to publish the article, but, in reality, start the ball rolling on the conversation about infanticide. Can people really be so blind to the pure evil behind this? Have we, as Christians, become so desensitized to abortion that we’ve allowed this to happen?
    There should be no compromise on this or any other abortion issue. To hell with the arguments for exception for rape and incest – God chooses to bring life; what god have we become that we can now choose to end it?

  3. Edward Tarte says:

    Paul Lyle, I agree with you that infanticide is immoral. But your biblical God has endorsed and perpetrated infanticide on a large scale. That makes your biblical god my moral inferior, and I will never worship a being who is my moral inferior. To do so would be to live a contradiction, which is something I strive not to do.

  4. Chris says:

    Edward,
    I am not going to go into detail on your belief that God endorsed infanticide therefore is morally inferior, because Paul has made perfectly clear the context and reasoning of Gods works over and over again on his blogs and comments. God is completely justified in all he does and if you attempt to make God fit your view of morals and fairness, then you are god, not the one true God.

    But I wish to show you how irrational your statement is. Let’s compare the biblical God’s morals to your morals. I think I can rightly assume you believe the following to be wrong: lying, adultery, cheating, not helping others when they are in need, etc. The Bible clearly states God has never nor will ever do ANY of these. I am willing to bet you have done these at least once in your life. I know I have and every human being on the earth! Therefore, this makes God more morally sound, according to your system of beliefs, than you are. That means you better stop worshipping yourself and worship God since you, “will never worship a being who is my moral inferior. To do so would be to live a contradiction, which is something I strive not to do.”

    Edward, I am sure you are well aware of the gospel. But here it is again….your morals and acts do not make you a good person. For behind your acts, there is selfishness, pride, etc present. The only way to be forgiven for this failure is complete trust in faith in Christ. Believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and you will be saved.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.