Last week I read this article about two Catholic midwives who lost their case to not be involved in abortion procedures. Apparently being a conscientious objector will get you off the front line, but you might still have to make bombs.
But a much bigger volcano just erupted, namely the propsal of medical ethicists Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva that parents should be given the option to have their newborn babies killed under certain circumstances (the same circumstances that apply to abortions).
Naturally, this has stirred up some intense reactions. Adrian Warnock suggests (or rather, agrees with the Daily Mail) that their argument actually undermines the case for abortion. I disagree, and here's why...
The proposal put forward by Giubilini and Minerva is, in fact, the absolutely logical next step from abortion. I firmly believe that anyone who holds that abortion is morally acceptable must either agree with them, or be guilty of double-standards.
What is the difference between an unborn baby and a newborn baby? It might immediately seem like a vast difference, but as these academics point out, neither have a sense of their own existence. So why would a person who is pro-abortion be opposed to "after-birth abortion"? Whatever their objections are, they are not logical because when you believe it is acceptable to kill an unborn baby because it is not really a person then you must also agree that it is acceptable to kill a newborn baby.
It's utterly appalling, and we need to be prepared for the following shift. One of two things will happen:
1) People will see the logical connection between abortion and "after-birth abortion" and agree to accept both.
2) People will se the logical connection between abortion and "after-birth abortion" and decide to reject both.
Lets pray that its the latter.
And also please read this.