There have been a series of blog posts on several sites I read responding to the Donald Trump abortion comments in which he stated that if abortion were illegal, then a woman who has an abortion should face some sort of punishment. Pro-life activists, many of whom are Christians, came out forcefully against Trump on this. The pro-life movement has long held that doctors who perform abortions, but not the women who have them, should be held liable for murder and punished.
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.
I have always thought the answer to this question is “no” because Christ died for us while we were yet sinners. So I’ve always thought sin is just a matter of degree and that no one can put themselves beyond God’s reach and lose their humanity (Imago Dei). That is why a number of years ago when the late Lawrence Auster referred to a group of young criminal men as possibly being “sub-human,” I strongly disagreed with him.
But I have no idea how it is possible that Dr. Ginde of Planned Parenthood can be considered “human” and retaining her Imago Dei. Has she not become a monster in Satan’s image?
During the conversation, [Dr.] Ginde is asked if she ever gets intact specimens.
“Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact,” she said.
CMP alleges that, since this particular Planned Parenthood affiliate does not use feticides in its second-trimester procedures, any intact deliveries prior to an abortion “are potentially born-alive infants under federal law.”
Near the end of the more than 11-minute video, Ginde digs through the remains of an 11-week-old fetus in a petri dish, showing different body parts to the undercover activist.
At one point, a sound identified as a skull cracking is heard. Later, someone in the room asks questions such as “Do they want brain?” and “Do people do stuff with eyeballs?” The activist laments that using water in the petri dish has caused some of the tissue to come apart.
“Well you know, a lot of times, especially with the second [trimester fetuses], we won’t even put water, because it’s so big you can put your hand in there and pick out the parts,” Ginde says. “So I don’t think it would be as war-torn.”
As Ginde looks over the fetal tissue she says, “It’s a baby.”
The last quote in the video comes from a medical assistant, joyfully proclaiming “And another boy!” when she realizes the sex of the fetus they are dissecting.
The horrifyingness of this is unspeakable. How can it be that these women somehow retain Imago Dei? Are they not the foulest agents of evil imaginable?
It’s not that I think God could not forgive their sin or that Christ’s shed blood would not cover it. It’s that I wonder if these women any longer retain the ability to avail themselves of Christ’s atonement. Is it possible that their choices have rendered them inhuman monsters, dead souls in living bodies?
I suppose I am just having an emotional reaction. I am not a theologian and only have introductory-level education in formal logic. I know that other people such as Ted Bundy have committed horrendous acts and still been able to repent and turn to Christ for forgiveness. But those people were insane and on some level seemed to be able to acknowledge they were insane. These women behave as if sane and are accepted by society as being entirely in their right minds. If someone is entirely in their right mind and yet able to commit such atrocities, where is God’s image in them?