Tag Archives: Topic: Infanticide

Rebecca Hagelin at Townhall: And now, the advocates of death have stepped up the tempo. A new generation of ethicists has begun making the case in favor of so-called “after birth abortion.”

Catholic Culture: Hadley Arkes argues that the appearance of an article in a bioethics journal justifying infanticide demonstrates the need to revive the public discussion of the Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act.

The Engage Family Blog (includes audio link): Two philosophers recently published an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics promoting the idea of, “after-birth abortion.” Dr. Robert P. George helps us understand the logical implications of what we used to call, “infanticide” and how it reveals the necessary logical implications of the abortion industry itself.

Rep. Christopher H. Smith at Washington Times: Late last month, two bioethicists – Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva – published an outrageous “paper” in the Journal of Medical Ethics justifying the deliberate, premeditated murder of newborn babies during the first days and weeks after birth.

William Saletan at Slate: I don’t buy this argument, in part because I agree with Furedi that something profound changes at birth: The woman’s bodily autonomy is no longer at stake. But I also think that the value of the unborn human increases throughout its development. Furedi rejects that view, and her rejection doesn’t stop at birth.

Denise J. Hunnell at LifeSiteNews: Let us consider two excerpts, and see if we can determine which comes from the realm of fiction, and which comes from the field of modern ethics.

Albert Mohler, Jr. at LifeSiteNews: From the beginning of the controversy over abortion, this supposedly bright line of the moment of birth has been unstable. Abortion rights activists have even opposed efforts to restrict the gruesome reality known as partial-birth abortions. The moment of birth has never been the bright line of safety that the defenders of abortion have claimed.

Rabbi Adam Jacobs at Townhall: It was for that reason that I found the headline of an article from the Telegraph dated March 2 to be so jarring. It was entitled “Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say.” Ah, you see, they are experts — medical ethicists associated with Oxford University, no less — so there’s really no reason to get too worked up about it. As they correctly point out, the only real difference between a late-term fetus and a newborn child is its location!

ADF Attorney Catherine Foster at Townhall: In the most recent edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics, two ethicists argue that we ought to be able to kill our children after their birth, after we have gotten the chance to hold them in our arms and take family photos. Why?—For the simple reason that we are able to kill them before their birth via abortion.

LifeSiteNews: Taking the logic of abortion to its ultimate consequence, two ethicists have argued that “killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.”

CBC: “The Ontario Court of Appeal denied an appeal by the Crown in the case of a Guelph, Ont., woman convicted of infanticide after smothering two of her children. The case marks the first time a Canadian appellate court has examined infanticide provisions in the Criminal Code in detail.”