Whoville vs. Sparta

The Return of Infanticide

“A fetus is not truly human,” say advocates of abortion. Well, according to two pro-choice ethicists, neither is a newborn baby.

Listen Now | Download

Chuck  Colson

“A person’s a person, no matter how small,” was the refrain from Dr. Seuss’ famous children’s story, “Horton Hears a Who!” Horton the elephant has to convince his fellow jungle-dwellers that there really are tiny people on a speck of dust. When they find out Horton is right, they’re ashamed of their efforts to destroy the microscopic town of Whoville.

Well, if only modern ethicists were so ethical.

Two professors from the universities of Milan and Melbourne recently published an article in the online Journal of Medical Ethics entitled, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”

“We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be,” write Drs. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

How do they justify this conclusion? By agreeing with what Christians have been saying all along: that a newborn is no different from a baby in the womb. But instead of accepting that both have a God-given right to life because they’re human, these ethicists argue that it ought to be legal for parents to kill either at their discretion.

If reasons like cost, stress, and inconvenience are good enough to justify an abortion, say Giubilini and Minerva, then they’re good enough to justify infanticide, or as these ethicists call it with a straight face, “the killing of [a] potential person.”

Folks, this kind of logic isn’t new. It goes back to pre-Christian Greece and Rome, where leaving babies out to die of exposure was commonplace. In the Greek city state of Sparta, in fact, it was mandatory to kill weak or imperfect infants. And in Rome, unwanted, healthy babies were routinely thrown into the river to drown.

But as Alvin J. Schmidt describes in his book, How Christianity Changed the World, it was the Church which first challenged this practice. The old images of Christians with nets fishing Roman infants out of the Tiber are as moving today as the reality was almost two-thousand years ago.

Happily, Giubilini and Minerva’s article is getting a lot of attention: and exposing their deadly logic. This is a chance for the world to see abortion for what it really is: the killing of innocent human beings, whether in the womb or just born.

Many of our laws in this country are built upon the fantasy that birth, not existence, bestows a fetus with personhood. If you kill a newborn in the United States, as infamous Philadelphia abortionist Kermitt Gosnell did for decades, you go to jail. But just minutes prior, that same act of killing can be legal.

This is nonsense. I’m praying that articles from ethicists like Giubilini and Minerva will wake people up to the reality of what they’re justifying.

If enough people start to get it, then it won’t matter what a few academic elites think. Legal abortion will crumble before the outcry of decent, moral people, just as it did when early Christians dared to speak out against infanticide and abortion in their time.

Tell your friends about this. Press people on it. If they’re not willing to condone infanticide, how can they favor abortion? Maybe they’ll be willing to admit that a person really is a person — no matter how small.

Further Reading and Information

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
Alberto Giubilini & Francesca Minerva | Journal of Medical Ethics | February 23, 2012

Doctors 'should have the right to KILL unwanted or disabled babies at birth as they are not a real person' claims former Oxford academic
Fiona Macrae | Daily Mail | March 1, 2012

It's no longer just Peter Singer
Robert P. George | MirrorofJustice.blog.com | February 27, 2012

Ethicists justify infanticide in major medical journal
Peter Baklinski | LifeSiteNews.com | February 28, 2012

How Christianity Changed the World
Alvin J. Schmidt | Zondervan | 2004




Whoville vs. Sparta
“After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” ...
The arguments & rationale for ending
human life before or after birth (abortion, infanticide, euthanasia) begs the question “Why stop here?” The same reasoning can be used for killing anyone at any age. The Nazis
did! It seems we haven’t learned anything. When will this insanity stop ... when we’re all dead?”
Pepsi/abortion link?
I sent the following email (my second one) to Pepsico:

I have done my own research and I know that Pepsico has a four year contract with Senomyx. I have read their patents and know that they DO use HEK293 (Human Embryonic Kidney 293 cells). Also, I checked out this link: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4746.full?sid=4d40b459-c0ed-48d2-a378-9f8646f139a3 from the National Academy of Sciences. Even more info from this article, that states human and rat TR1s were cloned. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC123709/ I went to the Invitrogen website that Senomyx cited as their source for T1R2-T1R3 Human Sweet Receptor. Please end this horrific association with Senomyx! Sincerely, Sandy Johnson

From my own internet research, I have concluded that Pepsico deserves to be boycotted, as they do have a four year contract with Senomyx to find lower calorie beverages. I have visited the Senomyx website, US patent site, and the sites in my email to Pepsico.

I want the truth! Are aborted fetuses being used for research? I think so, as I found websites that offer HEK293 for sale!

Mrs. Sandy Johnson

Pepsico did respond to my first email with the following:

Dear Sandy,

Thank you for contacting us at PepsiCo to share your thoughtful comments. We value your feedback and appreciate your interest in our products. For competitive reasons, it has been our standard practice not to comment on specific research processes; however, we do understand and are sensitive to your question. Please know that PepsiCo does not conduct or fund research that utilizes any human tissue or cell lines derived from embryos. Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.

Pepsi Consumer Relations

I would like to conduct some research regarding ancient cultures views on abortion and infanticide. Especially as it relates to the local civil laws and religion (i.e. Molech worship). Could you recommend some sources?