As I was pondering the videos released by the Center for Medical Progress showing Planned Parenthood doctors carving up aborted babies in order to sell their organs, and executives haggling over the price like old ladies in an open-air market haggling over the price of dill weed, I recalled that a few years ago, philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva published an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics proposing that infanticide be called post-birth abortion instead and purporting to prove that there is no moral problem with the practice because infants, like fetuses, are non-persons:
[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.
This was quickly accepted by much of liberal society, which isn’t surprising given that child euthanasia is already legal in some European countries, most notably without any age limit in Belgium. By treating the killing of human life as sometimes acceptable and the “products of conception” (embryos, fetuses/babies) as a for-profit commodity, we have accelerated our descent down a slippery slope to utter depravity.
- IVF technology is widely available
- surrogacy is increasingly socially accepted and continues to grow as a for-profit business in poor countries such as India
- the organs and other body parts of aborted babies are acceptable to sell,
- post-birth abortion (infanticide) is ethical,
- and human cloning becomes possible (which it probably will within our lifetimes),
- it will be considered ethical to pay poor women to be a sort of “body parts” farm for the wealthy.
The market for this will eventually be huge. A wealthy person will simply pay a poor woman in India to carry and deliver an infant, perhaps conceived via IVF or perhaps a clone if the technology has advanced that far (as it soon will); the baby will then be murdered and have whatever organ or tissue the wealthy person needs or wants “harvested” for use.
At first it will be couched in terms of medical need – This man will die without a new kidney! How can you be against saving his life? – and eventually it will be considered acceptable for any purpose – Why isn’t it ethical to grow new sex organs for use by a person who is “transitioning” to the opposite sex? Why shouldn’t that celebrity grow herself a new face full of baby-smooth skin?
Given what modern liberals have already stipulated as being morally acceptable, the only impediment to the above scenario is technological.