This post was written for University of Toronto Students for LifeUniversity of Toronto Students for Life by juvericci. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.
Really? I thought that’s what pro-lifers have been saying for the last little while, but don’t trust us! Trust the experts!
Seriously, though, this article in the British Medical Journal is callous. It really goes to show what kind of mentality arises when there is no respect for life. What stood out for me is that for a medical journal article there is a lot of talk about “personhood”, which is really a philosophical issue instead of a scientific one. And in terms of verbal gymnastics, check out this little somersault on the issue:
we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’,
to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.
Disgusting. In order to feel better about the killing of a newborn they use the euphemism of “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide”. Not only does it lessen the personhood of the newborn, it sounds nicer too. Win Win! Again, I ask why is there talk of moral status of an individual in a scientific journal? How can you perform experiments in a lab regarding personhood?
Science already has a term to describe a fetus, a newborn and a child: Human life.
Read the comments at the University of Toronto Students for LifeUniversity of Toronto Students for Life website.