The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves. That enables them to act as if there were no price, even when there are ruinous prices â€” paid by others.
If you go to where the Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) had pre-published the article by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” you’ll find that it’s gone. They have apparently pulled the article in response to the outrage that it caused.
I love 404. It Looks Like Victory!
I don’t know if this means that the editors of the Journal of Medical Ethics have had a rush of brains to the head and remembered that “ethics” is part of their rag’s title and that they won’t be publishing the pro-infanticide drivel by the would-be baby-killers, Giubilini and Minerva. One can certainly hope so though.
Ladies and gentlemen, this may only be small ethical victory and it may only end up being a temporary one, but it is a victory both for ethical behavior and for the power of the people in this information and near universal access age.
The article by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” recently published in the The Journal of Medical Ethics presents Mankind with an immediate and profound ethical quandary.
It is not the quandary of whether or not there is an ethical imperative for Giubilini and Minerva to be killed for advocating infanticide in a venue that could, as Ezekiel Emanuel’s opus proves, affect medical science and policies. The ethical imperative to kill these would-be baby-killers is so obvious that it almost goes without saying.
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.
Any society that will not protect its children and kill threats to those children is pointless, and exercise in futility, and eventually doomed to failure and dissolution. Hence, there is no quandary about whether or not Giubilini and Minerva need, from an ethical standpoint, to be hunted down and exterminated. It’s self-evident.
Nor would it be overly fruitful to dwell long upon the conflict between ethical imperatives and the strictures of mortal law. That’s a conflict that people resolve on a daily basis and is a normal part of living in a society where, perforce, law and justice cannot be the same thing and often widely diverge out of perceived necessity.
The True Man will make his decision as to either follow an ethical imperative or the law based upon his discernment of the overall risks and benefits to his people. The Low Man will decide what to do based upon the costs vs. benefits to himself. In either case though, these are decisions made daily and both True Men and Low Men may reach the same conclusions as to how to act on any given imperative.
No, the ethical quandary is whether or not there is an ethical imperative to exact punitive and deterring measures upon Julian Savulescu, Editor, Journal of Medical Ethics who provided them with a dangerously high profile venue, and Professor Sergio Bartolommei, University of Pisa, who provided Giubilini and Minerva aid and comfort in the actual writing of their treatise on infanticide.
Is there an ethical imperative to kill Savulescu and Bartolommei for the heinous acts of enabling the infanticidal vermin, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva to publish their advocacy of “Post-Birth Abortions” where it could potentially do the most harm? Will some lesser act or acts of retribution and defensive measure suffice? Does no action need to be taken against them? That’s the real ethical quandary in this case.
My first instincts are that there is certainly an ethical imperative to take harsh action against Giubilini’s and Minerva’s enablers and that their deaths might be required for the sake of society’s overall health. Savulescu willfully chose to publish the would-be baby-killer’s paper and Bartolommei had the opportunity to quell their efforts at the start but chose to abet them instead.
Yet both of these men have professional duties that might preclude their refusal to enable Giubilini’s and Minerva’s evil. They also may, as True Men must, have weighed the possible harm that what amounts to censorship might cause vs. what harm such a paper might cause.
Not knowing Savulescu’s and Bartolommei’s motivations for providing aid and comfort to Giubilini and Minerva, I can’t say for certain that there’s an ethical imperative to take any action at all against these two men. Yet, likewise, I cannot think ill of or speak out against anyone who, after consideration, arrived at the opposite decision and chose to kill them.
It’s an ethical quandary. All one can do is apply reason to it and follow one’s conscience wherever it leads them.
UPDATE: The Journal of Medical Ethics has deleted the online pre-publication of the would-be baby-killers’ article! It looks like the outrage of right-thinking people scored a small ethical victory.