- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Sandra Fluke, the 30-year-old shameless Georgetown law student who last week was invited to address Democratic members of the House of Representatives on her need for free contraceptives, is now a media darling. Her name has become a household word. It may soon be added to the dictionary as a verb “fluked” and the ever popular adverb, “fluking.”
Meanwhile, virtually unnoticed by the mainstream media, two Australian college professors, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, set off a firestorm of worldwide proportions by arguing for legalized infanticide.
Fluke’s appearance was a cheap publicity stunt, little more than a pep rally for President Obama’s plan to force religious institutions to cover contraceptives even if it violates their moral principles.
Meanwhile, the Giubilini and Minerva pronouncement, “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” received the blessing of the scientific community when it was published online by the British Journal of Medical Ethics.
Certainly, the Giubilini and Minerva peer-reviewed article deserved more coverage than Fluke’s pathetic drivel that couldn’t pass the laugh test, but it was largely ignored by all but religious publishers and columnists
Too bad. These issues are strangely related and are as ominous and they are absurd. Fluke is a long-time abortion-rights advocate. Now that abortion has fallen out of favor, abortion activists don’t call themselves that anymore. It’s all about “reproductive rights.”
I offer NARAL and RCAR as examples. The National Abortion Rights Action League is now the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, and the Religious Coalition of Abortion Rights is now the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Sounds much more reasonable, doesn’t it?
We now know that Fluke is not just another college coed. She is a hardened, battle-tested activist and president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, which specifically targeted Georgetown.
Let’s be clear: The only reproductive rights all of these people really care about is the right to kill unborn babies. Birth control hasn’t been an issue in this country for at least 100 years now. It’s a smoke screen to cover up the real agenda. They lose when they talk about abortion so now they are trying to make a nonissue – birth control – the issue.
Fluke is the poster child/woman for those who are promoting the idea that sexual activity has no consequences. They want us to believe that copulation has no more implication than that of a handshake, if the shakee agrees.
Meanwhile, when birth control fails (or, more likely, forgotten) abortion is the fallback position, and Giubilini and Minerva ask us to look at the logical conclusion of where this leads. If a child can be killed months, weeks or seconds before birth with impunity, why not after birth?
Life is a continuum. Nothing magical happens to the child during that short trip down the birth canal. Therefore, the authors argue, “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
The authors prefer the term “after-birth abortion” to infanticide (which is practiced in China and India) or euthanasia (which is practiced in Holland). They reject infanticide because they contend that “the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus,” rather than that of an older child, and that euthanasia is not relevant because “the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice.”
If abortions are legal for any reason – and they are here in the U.S. – the authors contend that a parent has the right to have her infant or very young child killed after birth for any reason, such as the death of a spouse, the disruption of the family, or merely the belief that the parent would have a better life if the child were not present.
The idea that personhood should not be granted until sometime after birth, until the child can “measure up” to society’s standards, is not new. Peter Singer (Princeton), Virginia Abernethy (formally of Vanderbilt) and Michael Tooley (University of Colorado) have all made that argument. However, Giubilini and Minerva go even further and contend that if you follow the logic for abortion, then parents should have the right to kill their perfectly healthy children and a respected medical journal now has legitimized this view.
Doesn’t this, at the very least, deserve the same amount of coverage as the Sandra Fluke debacle?
We can continue to hide behind the semantics used by the pro-abortion (i.e., reproductive rights) crowd, or we can face the slippery slope we are now on and say, “Enough!”