Skip to content
Published: March 3, 2012 4:12 pm to Human Rights News

Ethicists ask: “why should the baby live?”

It’s commonly understood that having a baby is the way to bring new life into the world.  And typically, a life should live, right?  Normal people don’t usually go around asking, “Why should that person live?”  Usually, the question would be, “Why should they die?”

But, in a strange—and horrifying—turn of events, ethicists have written in the UK’s BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics that some infants should be slated for death.  They have written a paper entitled “After-Birth Abortion:  Why Should the Baby Live?

Cassy Fiano has already detailed much of the information included in this outrageous paper.  However, I’d like to call out a few more points specifically.

Should this baby live?

First, let’s be clear on one thing.  This paper really and truly advocates the position that parents should be allowed to order the death of their newborn infant for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER.  These “ethicists” argue for no restrictions at all.  Any reason a parent may think of is perfectly acceptable.  The paper states:

…when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

What justifies abortion in modern day America?  Any reason under the sun.  Of course, some states have enacted restrictions, but these restrictions usually apply to a point in time in the pregnancy at which abortion is no longer allowed.  These restrictions do not typically prohibit a certain reason for having an abortion.  Thus, under the ethicists’ argument, even with these prohibitive  laws, newborn infants should still be eligible for free murder, at their parents’ discretion.

Second, this entirely whacked out article claims that a newborn baby is, in fact, NOT a new person who has been brought into existence.  Read the explanation:

Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet….

It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.

While these ethicists eagerly agree that a newborn is a human being, they adamantly deny that such an infant exists.  Somehow, in their delusional minds, a living creature/person/human/animal/thing (whatever they wish to call the infant) does not exist.  He lives, but he does not exist.  The ethicists never state when, exactly, a human being begins to exist and therefore, acquire the right to life.  They appear to argue that some newborns are eligible for “after-birth abortions” for a few days, and some for a few weeks.  It all depends on the mental state so, hey, it may be even longer for some  babies.

Finally, if you take the time to read the whole article, you will find it filled with hypocrisy, contradictions, and psycho-babble.  While claiming that newborns have a right not to be inflicted with pain, they argue for their murder, based simply on the conflicting plans of the parents.  While arguing that we should consider future potential people—who will one day exist—in some decisions (i.e., environmental ones), they argue that current potential people can be killed at random.

The arguments set out in this article are some of the most dangerous this world has ever seen—clearly on par with the writings of Hitler and other deranged individuals.  The article argues in support of the free and rampant murder of human beings as the ethicists attempt to explain away all harm that comes from such actions:

If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. So, if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed, had our parents decided to kill us when we were fetuses or newborns, our answer is ‘no’, because they would have harmed someone who does not exist (the ‘us’ whom you are asking the question), which means no one. And if no one is harmed, then no harm occurred.

Shame on these writers for calling themselves ethicists when they lack the most obvious of moral values—a simple appreciation for human life at all stages.  And shame on the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics which claims to “help doctors make better decisions” for daring to print this article—chock full of the seeds of human rights violations.

About Kristi Burton Brown

Kristi Burton Brown is a pro-life attorney, volunteering for Life Legal Defense Foundation and also as an allied attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom. She enjoys being a stay-at-home mom, and is married to the amazing David Brown. Together, they have the cutest two kiddos in the world! Kristi loves her Savior, Jesus Christ, speaking out for the truth, reading historical fiction, scrapbooking, politics, and cooking.

She also has her own blog at: www.thelostgenerations.wordpress.com


View all posts by Kristi Burton Brown

  • Armolas

    Omgosh, that makes me sick to my stomach!

  • Wendybug1996

    People like this make me sick. Every baby should have the right to grow up and become an adult every baby born or fetus shld have the right to live there lives

  • TLC13

    if it’s ok to kill a newborn baby…then it should be ok to kill these idiots in the UK, who thought of this!! quote, “The ethicists never state when, exactly, a human being begins to exist and therefore, acquire the right to life. They appear to argue that some newborns are eligible for “after-birth abortions” for a few days, and some for a few weeks. It all depends on the mental state so, hey, it may be even longer for some babies”…or in this case, maybe it would be ok if someone took the authority & killed these & let these silent, innocent babies LIVE!!!!!! But, anyone believing in God, knows that they will be punnished for their evilness!

  • http://www.facebook.com/brenda.clements Brenda Anne Downs Clements

    Wicked is the slippery slope

  • carmen

    No one should kill babys. This make me sick to my stomach. i love babys.   

  • Rebecca Bianco

    Clearly they have ordained that they are persons.   From their article:  If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us,

    I don’t even want to be in the same sentence with these ‘people.’

  • flashingnumbers23

    If you don’t want the baby you give it up for adoption. under no circumstances should it be permitted to take the life of an infant or a fetus. There are other ways to handle it without killing anyone. They may not be able to have formed any goals yet, but they could wind up being someone great, you never know. Everyone one deserves a chance at life, every life is worth living and worth having been lived, every person is important in one way or another. It is sickening to think that someone would not only say that this is okay, but try to argue it. Anyone who is pro choice, think about it, what if your parents had decided that they didn’t want you? If every parent of a generation decided to abort? Where would the world be then, if more and more people gave up their children this way the human race would die out. The worst crime you can commit is to harm a child, people who go to jail for murdering a child are called monsters, so how does that make anyone who decides on abortion any better?
       And aside from the immorality of killing a baby unborn or otherwise, think of the many couples out there who have tried so hard for a child and still can not have one. Meanwhile people are carelessly killing their children because they don’t want them.
       Abortion at any time is sick and unethical. At least give them a chance.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Karen21242 Elizabeth Stipetich

      Heck, most 10-year-olds can barely make plans! Is it ok 2 kill them also?! Very well said! ^_^b

  • SuperLogic

    Wow, things seem to just keep getting worse and worse!  But that’s what happens when you don’t respect life at ALL stages, you end up not respecting life at ANY stage.   Incredibly sad!

  • Amiritasmama

    Okay why is there such an issue about the death penalty then? Those people add nothing to society , and in my opinion ruin other peoples quality of life so why not kill those offenders who murder, rape, kidnap torture especially children?

    • http://www.facebook.com/jeep.obsessed Brooke Mehr

       It wouldn’t surprise me if the two “ethicists” who wrote the article are against the death penalty. By their reasoning, the murderers on death row have more of a right to life because they have aims. Even if those aims include unjustly taking the lives of others (who also have aims…).

      I don’t like the death penalty because it takes lives, but I think that the innocent human babies that are killed every day have more right to life (in my mind) because they have not done anything to warrant death. At least those facing the death penalty have already been given the chance to live and have made the choices that led them to where they are. It is at least a way to keep them from taking more innocent lives.

  • Awray90

    obviously, a newborn baby cant stick up for itself but if the parents dont want the child that they created, then at least give it a chance at life and make some other couple happy that is unable to have a child of their own. Any person that can kill a newborn baby and continue to live their lives as if nothing happened should also be killed themselves..people like this make me sick and they also deserve a good ass whoopin’. 

  • Hannah

    Wow! They do not even care about themselves!

  • davenisbet87

    Please don’t think madmen like this speak for all Brits.

  • Mike Monohon

    Unbelievable! The devil himself has once again laid down
    his poisonous trail of ink through the less-than-zero-education [Is
    that possible?], anti-Christ like, betrayal-of-Judas like ideology which
    constitutes the negative anti-fruit born of the devil portrayed within the
    ‘Ethicists- in name only’ indiscernible written words. Please do not believe one
    transmitted anti-idea of this so-called paper; It’s the devil speaking through
    those words – completely backwards, inside-out & up-side-down. The article
    is straight from you know where. Kind of like the string theory in science
    whereby smaller and smaller particles are being detected transcending down to
    almost the finest infinitesimal point these pro-death individuals [Who even
    their souls are still worth saving regardless] have reached almost down to the rock bottom
    lowest-of-the-low inhuman way of virtuoso-uncleanliness (An oxymoron) to try
    and make money possible; ‘Idolaters in-persona-satan’ realized at the expense
    of a beautiful and lovely life of a new born – a total disgrace to the world’s
    entire Medical Community. That paper is about medicine for profit not medicine
    BTW. Truly these guys constitute a couple of consummate trained
    idiots trying to a buck off a completely defenseless and perfectly good child.

  • http://twitter.com/MarauderTheSN Marauder

    When I was a fetus and a newborn, I already had characteristics that I still have to this day. I kicked to the beat in my mom’s uterus during an orchestra concert, which was probably good training for later on when I started to play the piano. I had to eat something every few hours or else I was in a seriously bad mood, which remains true now. My face flushed really easily; when I was in high school I was diagnosed with rosacea. The “me” who currently exists was clearly evident before I was born and when I was a few days old. I wasn’t some empty vessel without feelings or preferences or characteristics.

    As for “severely handicapped,” what’s always bothered me here – besides the obvious, that killing disabled people is just plain evil – is that EVERYONE has the potential to suffer, be unproductive, or have a lot of problems in life. Who’s to say that the intelligent, athletic, good-looking kid who ends up a criminal doesn’t cause more problems for his parents than his mentally retarded sister, who takes a while to learn things but is a friendly, mild-mannered person and has a job that contributes to society? Who among us has not interfered with their parents’ plans?

  • Sable

    Why does possessing genes that fall within the norms for the human species make a living creature a person? I know of no entirely satisfying set of requirements for personhood, but this one seems entirely arbitrary. 

    I can’t see any contradiction in the statements you pose. Many people object to the unnecessary suffering of non-persons: It’s a staple of laws regarding meat production that animals killed for food have a right not to be inflicted with unnecessary pain. Every possible combination of existing sperm and eggs is a potential person, but to my knowledge no one is advocating that every egg and sperm possible be used to make babies in order to realise the right to exist of the greatest number of potential people.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jeep.obsessed Brooke Mehr

       A sperm cell and an egg cell, separately, do not constitute a person. But, once they have come together (fertilization), a new life is present. It is not a “potential person,” it is a new, unique life. It may be a potential politician or a potential guitarist, but never a potential person.

  • Clhardaway

    We are all Gods creation, from the moment of conception. Period. We are ALL wonderfully made, regardless of our characteristics, goals, or achievements.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Debra-Kerr-Hofland/1160343008 Debra Kerr Hofland

    Sad – sad – sad.  And this IS the road we are on, folks.  When abortion is “okay” on the grounds of rape or incest, it is NOT a stretch for parents then to decide “other” reasons to kill an infant.

    When partial birth abortion is “okay” because the baby has hydrocephaly or some other extremely serious defect or deformity, when food and water are kept from non-responsive (supposedly brain-dead) coma victims (like Terry Schiavo), when “old”people are allowed to shrivel up and die in nursing homes….then it is not a stretch for parents to decide they have sufficient reason to kill their child after it has been born.

    When there are parents who sue their ob-gyn doc for NOT informing them of the possibility of a baby born with a particular deformity or defect, for “wrongful birth”–then it is NOT a stretch for parents to also pursue such actions in unloading a burdensome, deformed, defective child.

    When mothers are told that is is their “right” to have their child in the womb torn limb-from-limb in a D&C abortion, or burned in a Saline-induced abortion, or have it’s head punched & brains sucked out in a partial birth abortion, then why is ANYONE surprised that this is the next stop on the road?   

    Sad.  Sad.  Sad.

  • JoannaLeese94

    I believe that even the first day that a baby starts to form in the womb that they weremeant to grow. Killing babies at any stage is like taking a shit on gods will. Let alone who in the hell could kill something so innocent and precious. I a 3 month old little girl, she smiles, giggles, and yells at me. She has a brain and a soul and has had one since the day she started to grow in my womb. So why should she live? Because she has the right! A baby is precious and should be treated that way. Respect what god gives us b4 he takes it away. Anyone with a brain should feel the same. You don’t need a heart to understand.

    • JoannaLeese

      I was typing a little to fast. I meant I have a 3 month old little girl and to put a space between were and meant

  • http://www.facebook.com/NickDrakes Nick Drakes

    This is going to sound crazy but hear me out. The pro choice argument is starting to realize that since you can kill a “non human” in the mother, what changes after it is born? or even a mentally challenged person? These philosophers (ethics) understand that killing one is NO different than killing the other, which is TRUE, but in a pro life stance still is very wrong. This argument presented is going to show what the pro choice idea really is supporting, and the danger that is has. I see this as a good thing, something that should open the eyes to people. 

  • Michelleishappy

    “is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing”…. What????  Talk about vague! Just how do they decide to define “aim?”  a certain type of employment? IQ? Say that the parameters are defined by type of employment at least $40,000 per year. We would not know whether this newborn would accomplish this “aim” until they reach their late 20s or 30s at least. Is there a cutoff date? If they failed this aim by, say 35, could their parents then kill them for failing to achieve their “aim” and then not be charged with murder? Hitler and Mengele did not die as long as their ethics and morality live on in others; and the authors of this article seem to have “adopted” (excuse the pun) their thinking and ethics straight from the pit of those two evil sickos above. 

    How the BMJ could have, in the name of real medical science, consented to have printed such drivel, goes to show to what depths they will sink to fill their pages. God help them, and those “ethicists.”

  • Michelleishappy

    “is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing”…. What???? Talk about vague! Just how do they decide to define “aim?” a certain type of employment? IQ? Say that the parameters are defined by type of employment at least $40,000 per year. We would not know whether this newborn would accomplish this “aim” until they reach their late 20s or 30s at least. Is there a cutoff date? If they failed this aim by, say 35, could their parents then kill them for failing to achieve their “aim” and then not be charged with murder? Hitler and Mengele did not die as long as their ethics and morality live on in others; and the authors of this article seem to have “adopted” (excuse the pun) their thinking and ethics straight from the pit of those two evil sickos above.
    How the BMJ could have, in the name of real medical science, consented to have printed such drivel, goes to show to what depths they will sink to fill their pages. God help them, and those “ethicists.”

  • Michelleishappy

    “is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing”…. What???? Talk about vague! Just how do they decide to define “aim?” a certain type of employment? IQ? Say that the parameters are defined by type of employment at least $40,000 per year. We would not know whether this newborn would accomplish this “aim” until they reach their late 20s or 30s at least. Is there a cutoff date? If they failed this aim by, say 35, could their parents then kill them for failing to achieve their “aim” and then not be charged with murder? Hitler and Mengele did not die as long as their ethics and thinking live on in others; and the authors of this article seem to have “adopted” (excuse the pun) this straight from those two sickos above.
    How the BMJ could have, in the name of real medical science, consented to have printed such drivel, goes to show to what depths they will sink to fill their pages. God help them, and those “ethicists.”

  • SandyLester

    These alleged people are sick. These alleged people are no better than nazis.

  • Pingback: Pro-Life Debate #5: “It Is Not a Person.”

  • Pingback: Women, Be Proud of Abortion

  • http://www.facebook.com/vincent.lovece1 Vincent Lovece

    I believe the legal phrase for these kinds of people is that they have “Depraved indifference for human life.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/vincent.lovece1 Vincent Lovece

    These people are trying to drag us back thousands of years to the days when “unfit” or “unwanted” children were exposed in the wilderness. Unlike the myths, there will be no she-wolf or kindly shepherd to rescue them. Google the myths if you don’t get them.

  • solacerose

    This world has trully become something peoples of the past would regret to see. My take on the fact that they are insisting that babies are “potential people” because they haven’t made up any goals yet… it just made me think of the animation “Kirikou and the Sorceress” in which Kirikou spoke to his mother from the womb and showed that he had already made plans. Who are we the “people” to claim that the unborn children have no future goals just because they can’t tell us? Then again, isn’t crying to be fed, or changed, or given warmth and love an obvious display of a wish and goal to live? What if these unborn children could speak to us– what would they say? I know I may not have gotten the full meaning of the article, after all I’m only a teen, but this is just what I have to say. Things have just gotten out of hand. And I can’t really even make heads or tails out of these supposed “ethicists’” articles because they don’t make sense.

  • Pingback: Ethicists Argue That Genetically Altering Humans May Solve Global Climate Issues