"Potential Persons" and "After-birth Abortions"

The latest abomination to come down the medical-ethics pike is the February 23, 2012, publication of “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” in the Journal of Medical Ethics. This article is written by two ethicists, Alberto Guibilini and Francesca Minerva, both of whom are now working in Melbourne, Australia—he, at Monash University, and she, at the University of Melbourne. Both have ties to Oxford University in Great Britain.

The abstract of their article runs as follows:

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.

Yes, they actually wrote that in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal. These two ethicists—who do not deserve the title—advocate infanticide on the same level that abortion is “largely accepted.” They generally conclude that the same arguments that can be marshaled in support of killing a fetus in the womb can be applied just as well to killing a child who has recently left the womb. Without apology, they argue that since, in their way of thinking, fetuses and newborns are only “potential people” and not actual ones, “the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being” override any rights the fetuses and newborns allegedly have.

They go on to say that adoption is not a valid alternative to infanticide because “the interests of the actual people involved matter.” Thus, for example, since the birthmother may suffer “serious psychological problems due to the inability to elaborate [her] loss and to cope with [her] grief” in giving her baby up, her interest trumps the newborn’s right to life. Does that make any sense at all? To them, it does because they do not believe that the newborn is a person capable of having interests. In their minds, the newborn is sub-human, to borrow a term from eugenics, for in calling them “potential persons,” they are assigning them not-quite-human status.

We might think that their logic is horribly convoluted, but it is actually quite “sound” in the sense that they are not guilty of employing any readily apparent logical tricks. They are simply following accepted definitions and practices to their “logical” conclusions. What is wrong—indeed, terribly evil—are the foundation and suppositions of their philosophy. Since the original beliefs and assumptions are false, all of their subsequent conclusions take them further from the truth, though they may be ably reasoned using the accepted rules of argument.

As Jesus Christ admonishes us in Matthew 7:24-27—His parable of building on the rock—our beliefs must be solidly built on a true and immovable foundation. The thinking of Guibilini and Minerva is akin to the “foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall” (Matthew 7:26-27). In this case, the house is liberal Western society, and under beliefs like “after-birth abortion,” it will come crashing down in utter ruin.

A reading of the article brings out that the authors ignore the foundational question of the sanctity of life. They make no argument regarding the salient question, “When does life begin?” It is apparent that they have already resolved and accepted the position that embryos, fetuses, and newborns do not have a right to continued life unless “actual persons” grant it to them. “God is in none of [their] thoughts” (Psalm 10:4). Having rejected God’s very existence, and thus His revealed instructions for abundant living, they have set themselves—human beings—up as the highest authority, arbiters of life and death. With such power, they can decide by their own values and reasoning processes how and when any biological entity becomes a person deserving of a future existence.

What a brave new world men and women have created for themselves in their desire to live without God!

The sixth commandment, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13), covers this transgression quite adequately once we accept that the newborn child is certainly a living human being—and has been for many months. While the Bible contains no direct statement that life begins at conception, many passages show that God is involved in people’s lives before they are born (see Psalm 139:13-16; 51:5; Isaiah 49:5; Jeremiah 1:4-5) and that the fetus is aware and responsive to God (Luke 1:41, 44). God even commands life for life if a fetus is miscarried after a fight (Exodus 21:22-24). The weight of biblical evidence falls on the side of life and full humanity for fetuses and newborns.

Actually, this brave new world of abortion and infanticide on demand is simply the modern equivalent of ancient pagan practices like the abhorrent idolatry of the Canaanites in Old Testament times. Pagans would sacrifice their children to their gods to “ensure” that the living would have better lives. They would make a child “pass through the fire to Molech” (an act obviously forbidden by God; Leviticus 18:21) to supplicate the god to give them fertile fields, victory in battle, or some other blessing. Ironically, these ancient people held the life of a child as more dear than today’s uber-selfish individuals do, as the latter most often abort babies merely for their own convenience.

Concerning this horrible sin, God says of the people of Judah in Jeremiah 32:35, “And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.” As punishment, Jerusalem was “delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence” (Jeremiah 32:36). When such practices become commonplace, the society is ripe for destruction, as God intimates in Genesis 15:16 and Leviticus 18:24-29; 20:22-23.

There is nothing ethical about “potential persons” and “after-birth abortion.” They are the products of the twisted thinking of human beings tuned in to the broadcasts of a hateful Satan the Devil (Ephesians 2:2-3). He wants to destroy human life. Hundreds of millions of abortions are not enough to sate his appetite, so he has deceived people into taking the next step toward annihilation, infanticide. Could there be any better reason to increase our prayers to God to send His Son soon?

Judging Life and Death

Many Protestants and Catholics probably recognized the irony in the fact that the Terri Schiavo "right to life" case came to a head during their "Holy Week," in which the faithful contemplate the death and life of Jesus Christ. Schiavo's parents' wishes regarding her fate, pitted against her husband's—and purportedly hers—were argued in courtrooms in Florida, Georgia, and Washington, DC, and in the paneled halls of Congress, which took the unprecedented step of writing a bill for the benefit of one individual. President Bush obliged by signing it into law after midnight, hurriedly flying in from his Texas ranch to seal the deal.

It is no wonder that Terri Schiavo's case has sparked such debate across America, as two opposing values collide within it: the right to life, championed in the Declaration of Independence and by a host of devout advocates, and for lack of a better term, the right to a natural death, the desire of many not to prolong their lives artificially and pointlessly. Also in this case, religious beliefs square off against legal ethics, just as it sets medical ethics against parental love for their child. Surely, this is a case for the wisdom of Solomon!

We in the church of God believe that God is preparing us to be kings and priests in His coming Kingdom (Revelation 5:10), and kings and priests both have the function of judges—one in civil matters and the other in religious matters. If this case were brought before us to judge, how would we rule? What laws or principles would we base our decision upon?

Most of the arguments in the media are emotional. These arguments have their place, but a judge must first consider what is just and true before he has any basis for extending mercy. There must be a standard by which he measures the merits of each side in a dispute, and he rules according to the standard—not according to the fervency of one side's line of reasoning or the background, stature, or acumen of the other party's advocate. God lays out a judge's responsibility in Deuteronomy 16:18-20:

You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the LORD your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment. You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. You shall follow what is altogether just. . . . (see also II Chronicles 19:5-7)

The standard a godly judge must follow is, of course, God's law along with the statutes and the judgments. This is how God says it should be done: "In controversy [the priests] shall stand as judges, and judge it according to My judgments. They shall keep My laws and My statutes in all My appointed meetings, and they shall hallow My Sabbaths" (Ezekiel 44:24). This command, by the way, is given to the Millennial priesthood precisely because the priests of ancient Israel failed to judge as God had directed them. God prophesies, "I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city" (Isaiah 1:26).

Obviously, in the Schiavo case, the sixth commandment comes into play: "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). For many, the argument ends right here, for they prioritize a person's right to life above all others. Certainly, the value of any life is precious, but does it trump all others? The monkey wrench in this case is that, without the measures modern medicine has taken, including the insertion of a feeding tube, Terri Schiavo would have been dead years ago. On top of this, several doctors have examined her and concluded that she is essentially brain-dead—in a vegetative state—and has no chance to live a "normal" life. Though her heart is beating involuntarily, her brain has shut down. What is the godly definition of "life"?

Does the fifth commandment come into play? Some might say it does, using it to justify following her parents' wishes over her husband's. Those on the other side of the case might counter with Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man [or woman] shall leave his [or her] father and mother and be joined to his wife [or her husband], and they shall be one flesh." Which is the more important principle? Whose wishes should the court grant?

Another scripture that could be brought forward is Deuteronomy 19:15: ". . . by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established" (see also Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:16; II Corinthians 13:1; I Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28). Though Terri Schiavo did not have a "Living Will," a document that sets out a person's wishes should he or she continue to live only on life-support equipment, her husband and several friends have testified that she expressed her desire to them to be allowed to die naturally if she ever landed in such a circumstance. Does the lack of a piece of signed and notarized paper trump the testimony of more than the required "two or three witnesses"?

Some advocates might even bring up Paul's statement in II Corinthians 5:8, "We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord." Nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist Neal Boortz, who is also a lawyer, has advanced such an argument. Is Terri Schiavo better off dead, awaiting the judgment of God? Or is she better off living out her physical life, lying on a hospice-care bed, and needing constant medical attention?

Being a judge is not so easy, is it? Nevertheless, these and other thorny questions are what a just judge must face—not only in the "big" cases, but also in the routine ones. It is easy to jump to a conclusion that "he is wrong" or "she is right" (Proverbs 18:13, 17), but as the old saw warns, "The devil is in the details." Matters are not always cut-and-dried, which is why God is taking the time to train us in the skill and art of judgment, allowing us to ponder the questions of our time, great and small, and come to wise and godly conclusions without the pressure of having to make the actual decisions.

Take this opportunity to wrap your head around this case and come to a biblically sound conclusion. You may discover a budding Solomonic wisdom in yourself—or an area of understanding that could use some improvement!