Life is Precious (part I)
By Kevin McCarthy 5/26/2020
When we last heard of Alisa LaPolt Snow of the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, she was seen, in a 2013 YouTube video that went viral. The video shows her stammering badly in front of a Florida legislative committee in a poor attempt to answer the question put forth to her:
Legislator (to Ms. Snow): “If a baby is born as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to happen to that baby struggling for life?”
Snow: “That decision should be between the patient and the health-care provider.”
Legislator: “Wouldn’t the ‘patient,’ at this point, be the baby struggling for life?”
Snow: “That’s a really good question. . . .uh. . .I. . .uh. . don’t know how to answer that.
Well, thanks to the Journal of Medical Ethics, the answer has been provided. In a 2013 article, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? Professors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva explicitly answer the question that had so confounded Ms. Snow: the baby dies.
As we have known for years, surviving infants have been systematically left to die as if under some unspoken premise that made no distinction between a fetus and a living, breathing infant child. In several states, efforts were made, but ultimately failed to legislatively protect such innocent children. For instance, Jill Stanek, a labor and delivery nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, began a movement that led, finally, to the 2003 Congressional “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.”
In more recent times, pro-abortion advocates have become even more brazenly open with their callous disregard for human life. In January of 2019, it was Virginia Governor Ralph Northam who attempted to describe infanticide as the new normal. “So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that is what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Northam’s use of the word “resuscitated” is intentionally deceptive, in that the child, obviously, has been born and is alive. The infant does not need to be “resuscitated,” it needs to be cared for. What Northam really means is the child is allowed to die. Oh, but that’s okay, the Governor assures us, the child will be keep “comfortable” until then.
The Born Alive legislation is still being adamantly opposed by Planned Parenthood and other, so called Pro-Choice advocates like Northam. Their reasons, as Ms. Snow demonstrated in her muddled response, have been unconvincing, at best. . .and at worse, indicative of a much darker reality: that even a living, breathing child could be expendable – if deemed a deterrent to the interest of the woman who gave birth.
It is that darker reality for which Professors Giubilini and Minerva make the case adamantly clear in their article After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? The authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is allowed, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
Their assertion is that a fetus and a newborn are not “actual people” and are only “potential people.” In their view, a newborn, has the same limited status as a fetus. A potential person is, therefore, not a person and, thus, to terminate a fetus or a newborn is of no moral relevancy.
Giubilini and Minerva explain:
“The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual. Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value. . .merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.”
This, of course, denies a sacred tenet upon which our nation stands. It is the notion that we are endowed by the Creator with an innate human value and inalienable rights that are inherently a part of our humanity. They are immutable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Giubilini and Minerva see a newborn as possessing no inherent value or rights. Whatever value a person ultimately possesses must be achieved for the self, by the actions of the self. Such an assertion, therefore, places a newborn infant in a most vulnerable position, subject to the whims of pro-abortionists. It reveals in perfect clarity what has always been suspected. What lies at the heart of the controversy between Pro-life and Pro-abortionist is a diametrically opposite perspective of the value of human life, not only within the womb, but outside of it as well. Giubilini and Minerva articulate the relativist assessment of human life thusly:
“Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life.”
You see? The killing of a baby is justified because the baby does not meet the Leftist standard of personhood as provided by Giubilini and Minerva. In their view, it is only when a person is able “to make aims and appreciate their life” are they then morally subject to a “right to life” and, make no mistake, those “aims” had better be acceptable to the Left. Can you believe this monstrous illogic?