‘After-birth abortion’? What will be next?

The “slippery slope” analogy refers to what seems at first like a minor violation of a principle, that once started can’t be controlled until the person or society ends up in a heap at the bottom. Nowhere is this more evident than the issue of abortion. What follows is a history of abortion and where it seems to be headed.

In 1967, when abortion was first legalized in Colorado to protect the life of the mother or in the case of rape or incest, no one could have predicted it would come to what we see today. Last month, two bioethicists — Dr. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva — published an outrageous paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics justifying the deliberate, premeditated murder of newborn babies. Giubilini and Minerva wrote “when circumstances occur after birth that would justify abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

In other words, if a newly born child poses an economic burden on a family, or is disabled, or is unwanted, that child can be murdered in cold blood because the baby lacks intrinsic value and, according to the authors, is not a person.

Lest we think these sentiments are the thoughts of two totally misguided individuals consider the following from Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Francis Crick who said “ ... no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live.”

Few, even among ardent pro-choice folks, would not react with horror to these quotes, but 60 years ago few people considered abortion as even thinkable. When we walk away from principles, whether as an individual or as a society, we do so at our own peril.

Richard Kaiser

Elk Grove Village