Pages

Tuesday, March 06, 2012

An update from somewhere near the bottom of the slippery slope


We not infrequently hear an admonition against taking a particular action because doing so is the first step down a slippery slope that leads to disaster, or at least to some negative situation.

Over the last several decades we have seen a steady decline in what once was called “morality,” a concept increasingly regarded as something from the Stone Age; senseless restrictions hampering the good times of no rules and no responsibilities.

Perhaps it is a natural human reaction to want total freedom to do as one pleases, but wisdom and past experience show us that a society cannot succeed without some rules. However, social rules do not carry fines or jail time; breaking the rules brought only shame and having people whisper as you walked by. And as more and more people chose to ignore certain rules, the whispering faded out and the rules and the stigma attached to them gradually disappeared.

Without significant social penalties, the predictable results of casual and often careless sex increased, the most serious being unwanted pregnancy. Back in the day, when a female got pregnant, usually she had the baby and became a mother, and the male involved became a father. But that was inconvenient for one or both parents, so along with the loosening of sexual customs came a relaxed sense of responsibility for one’s actions, and unwed mothers and absentee fathers grew in number, along with children put up for adoption.

But having a baby you didn’t want was inconvenient for the mother, so abortion that was once used only when medical conditions warranted, such as when the health of the mother was at risk, became after-the-fact birth control.

Abortion advocates argue that a fetus, at least in the early stages, is not a human being, only a mass of cells. Therefore, relieving the woman of this tumor-like inhabitant is not killing a child, because it is a “nonviable tissue mass,” not a child.  The determination that a fetus is not a child is based upon the unresolved question of just when the fetus becomes a person: at conception, at viability (however that is defined) or at birth.

Now, two Australian ethicists – Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne, and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne – have provided an answer to the question: it doesn’t matter. They argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics  that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so, too, should be the “termination” of a newborn. This is what can happen when you climb onto that “slippery slope.”

And what is the philosophical, ethical justification for what once was considered cold-blooded murder? “[If] circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

In the abstract to the article Giubilini and Minerva explain that “abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” The authors say that adoption is not a viable alternative “because the mother might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption,” but not from killing it, apparently.

In the enlightened 21st century, merely being human does not mean that humans have an actual right to life.

Our two ethicists conclude their article: “If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.” Being a newborn, you see, is just another stage along the way to becoming an “actual” person.

In their intellectual wanderings through the amoral desert, the authors discovered that there are “actual people” and persons who are not “actual people,” but merely “potential persons.”

Only a few decades ago this discussion would never have gotten out of the padded room in which it was hatched; today it is considered reasonable, perhaps even enlightened.

However, when a newborn is expendable on the whim of its mother, for any reason or no reason, and is considered less important than some endangered critter like the Clanwilliam Redfin, the Zerene Fritillary, or the Coffin Cave Mold Beetle, how long will it be before “no longer viable persons” with some disease, a mental or physical disability, or who are merely too old to take care of themselves, will also be disposable?

Comments are invited. Click here to comment.


11 comments:

CK said...

There are some societies and cultures that practice active euthanasia on older folks once they become burdens on the family and/or unproductive members of society

it also happens in the animal world as well, in which mothers will kill or not take care of their young if there is a perceived defect...

its very difficult to set an all encompassing standard of practice for such circumstances and yes, this debate isnt going away anytime soon...for now, I'd say it always depends on the circumstances but I like that it is being discussed.

With all the talk of overspending on handouts/welfare and federal/state assistance to the poor, disabled or needy... it seems some conservatives might with OK with active euthanasia if it helps reduce the burden on the taxpayer...

James Shott said...

So, are you saying that you agree with those societies that practice euthanasia and the animals that abandon or kill weak members of their species?

The standard in this country is that human life is sacrosanct, to be protected. Virtually every religion also values life. Why should we all of a sudden abandon that view?

You said: “... it seems some conservatives might with OK with active euthanasia if it helps reduce the burden on the taxpayer...”

Is this an attempt at wry humor; trying to get a rise out of me; or a demonstration of the depths of your lack of understanding of conservatives/conservatism?

CK said...

i dont support active euthanasia on newborns, but I do support assisted suicide among the elderly or terminally ill and I also support abortion. And I also dont like it when people use abortion as a means of birth control, but it should be a legal option for females to ensure a safe medical procedure...

and the comment about taxes is a bit of an eye opener... Seems a hypocritical stance to deny an abortion and then also deny assistance for those who struggle, much like calling for less govt regulation but also pushing to regulate a womans right/inability to choose...its hard to have it both ways...

James Shott said...

It is difficult to deny a suffering person a means to end his or her own life, if that is their wish. And that leaves aside the fact that suicide is in some religions a sin. So long as it is the desire of the “euthanasee,” and that he/she is in their right mind.

In the vast majority of cases, abortion is birth control after the fact. According to the Center for Bio-ethical Reform, “1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).”

I support abortion for that 7 percent. Otherwise, no, and having it paid for by taxpayers is a horrible injustice.

I don’t believe government is ever supposed to provide food, shelter, medical care, etc., to any one for any reason, except for military personnel and rare similar circumstances. That is not what the American Revolution was about, and it is not within the Constitutional purview for government to indulge in such activities.

Taking care of people truly in need is far and away handled more efficiently by private sector initiatives, such as by churches and charitable organizations. Before government stuck its nose into it, that is how things were handled. But government largely drove private sector solutions out of business, and does a horrible job of trying to serve a charitable function, wasting billions and making a class of dependent Americans who no longer have the drive to take care of themselves.

It also is not the proper role for government to provide birth-control abortions, or to provide free contraceptives.

Women do not have a right to choose to kill a developing child they have created. The “right to choose” is a deeply flawed effort to relieve women of the responsibility for their actions. If you don’t want to get pregnant or to get someone pregnant, buy and use contraceptives. If you can’t afford contraceptives, either don’t have sex, or be prepared to become parents.

CK said...

these seem all well an good in a perfect or ideal world... but I live in the real world and all of these ideas seem quite far fetched and unrealistic if I'm being honest...

you are right... the sexual revolution of the 60s certainly liberated female sexual practices and our mass exposure to movies, tv and such within the media certainly encourage such types of behaviors...

so it sounds like more of a moral issue and changing the morals, values and behaviors of 400 million Americans is quite a daunting and very unachievable goal...

good luck with that...

James Shott said...

A perfect or ideal world will never exist (no matter how determined the statists/liberals are to create one). However, that does not mean we cannot improve upon things, and to some degree restore what we had, and didn’t have the good sense to hold on to.

And, yes, it is definitely a moral issue, complicated by a faithlessness for the principles so plainly stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America.

The fact that we have strayed so far from a moral culture and so far from the democratic republic our Founders gave us explains very graphically why being conservative, maintaining constitutional government and moral behavior, is so important.

Anonymous said...

Informative and entertaining .

CK said...

the world has just grown too large and too fast... we didnt cross 1 billion on the planet until 1800 and now we are at 7 billion in just 200 years... all thanks to advances in medicine and industrialism...

not sure if any system of government can truly organize or help manage/maintain/protect all of the people under their umbrella...i think we have to try to change and adapt as society changes ... its a futile fight to try to return to such a time as you describe...and to even think that the Founding Documents were perfect and pure is absurd. They are a great template and design, the best ever written, but they are still a work in progress...

James Shott said...

The Founders knew they could not provide for every potential contingency, which is why they provided a method to amend the Constitution.

The primary design and goals, however, cannot be improved upon: a government with explicit and limited power; and maximum individual freedom for Americans.

What has occurred since the Constitution was ratified, especially over the last roughly 80 years, was the implementation of things which run counter to both of those original sacrosanct ideals, and today we have government so big and bloated that it cannot function efficiently, and which has stuck its big nose so far into the day-to-day lives of Americans that the degree of individual freedom is a mere shadow of what they intended for us, and frankly has left us in a condition where there is hardly any area left that the federal government has not taken some measure of control over.

Federal departments and agencies that have either grown beyond their intended size and influence, or which have been improperly created form a long list, and among which are:
Departments of Energy, Education, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, Homeland Securtiy, to name a few.

Agencies include: Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Commission on Civil Rights, Commission on Fine Arts, to name only a few.

Go here -- http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml -- and be amazed at this conglomeration of tax-wasting government excess.

Too much government is the greatest threat to our well-being that exists, even greater than Barack Obama, because with a properly sized and limited government, no single person could do much harm.

CK said...

So I take it you'll be voting for Ron Paul?

James Shott said...

Should he be the Republican nominee, I will enthusiastically vote for him.

Give the man credit for being the only one left who truly honors the Constitution.

Some of his ideas won't work right now, of course, but it is tempting to think about whether the US would be in better shape if his ideas had been in place all along.