Wednesday, May 15, 2013


The Gosnell trial is over and it was the murder of a human being. But what amazes me is that there remains a question in the minds of some as to whether what Gosnell did was really morally wrong or not.

The evidence that the question is still a lingering one seems to be born out by the fact that while the murder rate in our country has plummeted in recent decades in almost every age group in our society, there is one group where the murder rate has doubled in that same time period. That group, according to the National Center for Health Statistics is___BABIES LESS THAN A YEAR OLD.

 I believe this fact indicates that killing preborn babies leads to the thinking that killing newborn babies, as was done in the Gosnell case, is a viable, if not legal, option. Where does this come from? Let me tell you what my opinion is on that.

Two Bioethicists, [Bioethics is the philosophical study of the ethical controversies brought about because of advances in biology and medicine.]  Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva have argued for what they call "after-birth" abortions, [which I would call murdering children] on the grounds that, and I quote them, "Both a fetus and a newborn baby certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a 'person' in the sense of possessing 'a moral right to life." 

These two men are unlikely to be well known among my peer group, but what they are advocating is held by many who are pro-abortion and is based on their belief that, according to them, "Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life." 

If you're wondering what, in their opinion, constitutes the justification for killing a newborn, their answer is, "Any circumstance where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it has the potential for an 'acceptable' life." They list Down Syndrome as an example of such a circumstance.

But the Gosnell case shows that there are many circumstances that qualify in the minds of Giubilini and Minerva followers for after-birth abortions, such as conditions of poverty, too many children already being present in the family, stress experienced by the pregnant woman or a myriad of other reasons. 

My opinion is, this is nothing more than Eugenics, which is the science of improving the human population by controlled breeding to increase the possibility of desired ends. [Hitler revisited.] This is completely predictable since at the heart of the Pro-abortion arguments is a redefining of what it means to be a “person” which has proven to inevitably lead to infanticide.

Fortunately, I've found that, at the present time at least, many pro-choice advocates I read still find infanticide abhorrent. But I think if any one of them will honestly and carefully reflect on the people who research this issue, and their conclusions, they will  see that if pre-born human beings are not worthy of being called a person, then it is NOT difficult to see why it follows that a new-born human being need NOT be called a person either.

With the Gosnell trial in Philadelphia you see this all played out in living [or dying] color in the courtroom.


Rex Ray said...

Good Post.

If an unborn baby is not a person, how did the Holy Spirit reveal that Jesus was the Son of God before John the Baptist was ever born?

Why some people can’t see this, I’ll never know.

Paul Burleson said...


It's because they don't accept the bible as the Word of God.

That's why I think it is important to be able to have an understandable argument based on several things like logic, philosophy, natural law, etc.

Those who don't accept the bible as the Word of God would include many since the percentage of those claiming some connection to Christianity worldwide is only 32% according to the Pew Forum on Religion.

In the USA 76% claim a connection but that's not saying a whole lot to me.

Aussie John said...

Thank you for writing this sad, but necessary post.


"After birth abortion"??? My dictionary defines abortion in these terms:
"Noun: abortion u'bor-shun
1.A deliberate termination of pregnancy
2. (medicine) the cessation of pregnancy or foetal development; a miscarriage
3. Failure of a plan
4.(biology) an early stop to the development of an organ, so that it is not fully formed or is absorbed
5. Something ugly or badly made; a useless failure ".

Who decides the redefining of "euthanasia" as "abortion"? The answer, of course is: Only a person bereft of any moral or ethical understanding of the worth of a human life!

Someone no different to Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or, any other deranged mad man/woman, for whom I have a great sadness that they don't know the One who created what they so willingly, and wantonly destroy.

I guess useless old detritus like me are next in line to be regarded as an unwanted pregnancy?

Victorious said...

Many years ago ( about 40), I worked in the Public Relations Dept. of a hospital in Rochester, N.Y. There was a good deal of information available to us in this dept. that other depts. may not have been aware of.

When an abortion was performed in that hospital, a Death Certificate was issued and offered to the parents as a matter of policy. This confirmed the fetus was a person.

How different thinking is today.


Paul Burleson said...

Aussie J,

I think this...."I guess useless old detritus like me are next in line to be regarded as an unwanted pregnancy?" the logical conclusion to the argument made by many about abortion.

There was a tribe in South America Stuart Briscoe told us about years ago that put their older people in the highest palm trees. Then shook the trees. Those that had the wherewithal to hang on, lived another year.

Then Stuart said, "We just shake the womb instead. "

But I think the "tree" days may come too.


Am I understanding correctly that a death certificate was issued TO THE PARENTS of the aborted child?

Victorious said...

Paul, perhaps the parents were simply "notified" that a death certificate was issued. It was so long ago that I don't remember exactly. I do remember it was called a "fetal death certificate."

Here's a link to the specifics in N.Y. State:

It states:

In every case of a fetal death in New York State the death must be reported.


A copy of the Fetal Death Certificate may be issued to the mother (patient) on the fetal death certificate.

Paul Burleson said...


Thanks for the link.

I don't know what it is about this, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. It's so much like issuing a death certificate after the an execution of a criminal which is recognizing this was a human being [person] but was worthy of nothing but death.

As I said, I can't get it, but I'm going to keep doing some reading to try and understand the thinking. Whatever it is.

I appreciate your comments here and other places I read what you say. Good stuff and keep it up.

lonlysumo said...

Abortion should be everyones personal right. If you made an honest accident and you know you won't love your child like everybody deserves to be loved, you should have the right to make a moral decision by yourself and live with its subconcious concequences. However prohibiting people from having an abortion or heavily judging them for it will only lead to an increase in divided families and unwanted children.

Paul Burleson said...


I'm accepting your comment as valid and not spam. I say this because so many comments have been inappropriate and had to be deleted and designated spam that I'm wondering about many at present.

So, thank you for commenting.

I disagree with your idea that a pregnancy can be designated as "an honest mistake." A pre-born child is more than that, to me at least. It is more than that to science as well it seems to me.

A pre-born baby's heart starts beating at 20 days and the brain gives off brainwaves at 40 days. Since these factors are used by the law to determine death, should they not be considered in determining life?

By 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except the back and top of the head, are sensitive to pain. Babies can even survive outside the womb at 21 weeks.

A blueprint of a home by an architect can have a mistake that can cause the blueprint to be torn up and thrown away without destroying a home. But I'm thinking the pre-born child is more than that piece of paper called a blueprint. It's a pre-born human being that deserves the right to life and to tear it up and throw it away is more serious than many think. Science even shows this to be a reality it seems to me.

I'm not attempting to force you to change your mind. I'm just suggesting there may be some legitimacy to another viewpoint than the one you've postulated.