INFANTICIDE

Infanticide: (or infant homicide) is the killing of a human infant/child.

I’m one of those people that ‘swings’ when it comes to the topic of abortion. 

I can see situations where abortion should be legalised (teenage pregnancy, pregnancy through acts of violence, major health or mental issues), and situations where they should not (career choices, marital status, financial reasons).

You may call me a ‘fence sitter’ if you like; I won’t take offence, for that’s exactly what I am.

However, when it comes to the topic of infanticide, we’re dealing with a completely different kettle of fish.

Our rich, global history is littered with different and contradicting views on infanticide. 

In some cultures, child sacrifice for religious or spiritual reasons was acceptable.  European history shows a period where an unwanted child was simply abandoned, where either nature (animals) or climactic influences (hypothermia), would claim the newborn.

In some societies, the practice of ‘suffocating’ an infant continued until as late as the 20^th century.  Some societies would implement the practice if times were difficult (one less mouth to feed), whilst others deemed the act criminal.

Some cultures even practice infanticide today, particularly if the child is not of the ‘preferred’ sex.

There are even recorded historical observations on Aboriginal life in South Australia and Victoria during the nineteenth century, which reported up to 30% of Aboriginal infants were killed at birth.

In the 21^st century, Australian society, which if you want to bring faith into it, finds its foundations in Christianity, treats the act of infanticide as criminal.  Let me remind you again that infanticide is the killing of a human infant; an infant that has been birthed, and is alive.

Why am I dwelling on such an unusual, if not controversial topic? 

I’m glad you asked.

I read a couple of articles the other day (and also heard it discussed on the radio), that the Journal of Medical Ethics published a paper discussing the arguments for ‘after-birth abortion’.  Dr Alberto Giubilini (a bioethicist from the University of Milan) and Dr Francesca Minerva (Australian philosopher and medical ethicist) wrote:

‘What we call ‘after-birth abortion’ should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is permissible, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.’

But wait; it gets better.

‘If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion, even when the foetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn’.

Basically, whatever your reasons are for wanting to abort a child, they argue that you could abort it pre and post birth, whether it’s healthy or not. Let me make this clear: they’re putting arguments forward suggesting that you can abort in-utero, or after birth. 

The good doctors continue:

‘We do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns… if economic, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes and unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something that they cannot afford.’

Are you fucking kidding me?

‘Something that they cannot afford?’

If you cannot afford (and by ‘afford’, I don’t just mean financially) to bring an innocent life (and I reiterate; innocent life) into this world, then for God’s sake check yourselves.  Better protection? Abstinence? Sterilization (tubes tied or vasectomy)?  There are many options out there.

However, I can appreciate that ‘accidents’ do happen.  The best laid plans can be thrown awry with an unexpected pregnancy, and sure; dependent upon your circumstances, abortion is a legitimate option. 

Let’s not forget the adoption option, either.  Although adopting kidlets from third-world countries is a wonderful, kind and generous thing to do, it’s a shame that the Australian adoption standards are so strict that a lot of well deserving couples fail to meet them. 

So, back to abortion.  Sure; there are many reasons we can table for the abortion of an unborn foetus, but not of a newborn.  Not of a healthy, living, breathing infant. 

And when is it too late to abort in infant?  1 day? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year?  If after a few months of having this beautiful new child in your life, you find that you are really struggling financially, do you qualify for an ‘after-birth abortion’?  There’s no threshold, remember.

What if all of your quarterly utility bills come in at once, then your car breaks down, and your hours at work are cut back, does that qualify?

I completely understand an individual’s choice to refuse aborting their baby and carry it to term.  But killing the infant after birth? 

The doctors also say:

‘The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a foetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.’

Really?  I thought their right to life was automatic, and it was our responsibility as adults to protect it?  This is where I disagree with the attitude toward abortion.  Just because a foetus is not in our world where we can see, feel, touch and hold it, doesn’t mean it’s not living.

But clearly, I’m wrong.

In an article published in The Telegraph, they explain that they have chosen to ‘call the practice ‘after birth abortion’ rather than infanticide to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a foetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.’

Really? Let’s cut the spin.  You can dress it up any way you like, but at the end of the day, you’re killing a child.  It’s infant murder.  You cannot possibly spin that into a positive.

In defence of these learned ethicist doctors, they explain that the paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide, but instead considers arguments in favour of families and their circumstances.

Apparently, the paper they wrote has garnered all kinds of threats against their person.  I’m not surprised, really, as the topic is extremely confronting, and I suppose, quite contradictory to our Christian based, western belief system.

However, my question is this: if these ethicists are expressing what people really think, and I’m not saying they are, I would like to know when life became so expendable.

Newborn: an infant (from the latin word infans, meaning ‘unable to speak’ or ‘speechless’) is the very young offspring of a human or other mammal.

I wonder what a newborn, if they were able to speak, would say about this?

Peace out.