In Britain, they want to open up the discussion on whether abortion can happen sometime after the baby has already been born.
Doctors involved in childbirth are calling for an open discussion about the ethics of euthanasia for the sickest of newborn babies. The option to end the suffering of a severely damaged newborn baby - who might have been aborted if the parents had known earlier the extent of its disabilities and potential suffering - should be discussed, says the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in its evidence to an inquiry by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which examines ethical issues raised by new developments.
The college says the Nuffield’s working group should “think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best-interests test and active euthanasia as they are means of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns”.
The inquiry is looking into “the ethics of prolonging life in fetuses and the newborn”. Euthanasia was not originally on the agenda, because of its illegality. But the RCOG submission has persuaded the inquiry to broaden its investigation, although any recommendation favoring euthanasia for newborns is highly unlikely before a change in the law.
Once one envelope has been successfully pushed aside, the next lies not that far away. The question of extraordinary lifesaving steps is one thing, but “active euthanasia” brings the matter into a whole new light. One has to wonder where the ethics and morality of those wanting such discussions to take place have gone.
And here’s an interesting attempt at selling the idea.
The college ethics committee tells the inquiry it feels euthanasia “has to be covered and debated for completion and consistency’s sake … if life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.” It points out that a pregnant woman who discovers at 28 weeks that her baby has a serious abnormality can have an abortion. Parents of a baby born at 24 weeks with the same abnormality have no such option.
“See, if this were an option, then we’d have more babies carried to term. Isn’t that wonderful? Only then would be bother with the eugenics. And really now, isn’t killing an already-born preemie just the same as a late-term abortion anyway?”
Abortion, being commonplace in our society, is now the foundation on which we start removing the infirm and the helpless. A comment on the Redstate post that gets the hat tip notes this:
I remember fairly recently they just uncovered a mass grave filled with Hitler’s first victims. They weren’t Jews, Gays, Gypsies or any other people group. They were the disabled and infirm. Now the reason they were killed was for the perfection of the race, but I also don’t swallow the “it is for their own good” argument-especially when those who are being put out of the misery may not have a voice or a choice.
Unfettered abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia and eugenics are all faces of the same thing; a lack of respect for life.