The forces of abortion rights are on the march against the pre-born again. This time they have created an "ethical" arguement for the murder of the
The New American
Written by Steven J. DuBord
Wednesday, 30 December 2009 10:00
The American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology (AJOG) published online in September 2009 a pro-abortion article entitled: “An ethically justified
practical approach to offering, recommending, performing, and referring for induced abortion and feticide.”
Written by Frank A. Chervenak, M.D., and Laurence B. McCullough, Ph.D., and featured in the December 2009 print edition of the journal, the article
basically justifies abortion by purporting that “the fetus lacks the capacity to generate a perspective on its interests” due to “the immaturity
of the fetal central nervous system.”
This is important, so the authors say, because if the fetus isn’t aware of his own interests, he has no claim to any rights. “The ethical
principle of respect for autonomy and the concept of autonomy-based rights therefore do not apply to the fetus,” the authors declare.
Chervenak and McCullough see this point of view as simplifying the whole abortion debate “because it prevents ethical analysis of induced abortion
and feticide in medical ethics from being paralyzed by divisive debates about a fetal right to life that have been going on for decades, indeed
centuries, without any basis for resolution.” They state, “The ethical concept of the fetus as a patient does not require appeal to the discourse
of fetal rights.”
Thus the article quickly disregards that all-important line from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.” Note that the Declaration did not say “born equal,” but “created equal.” There can be no dispute that the creation of a unique
human life occurs at the moment when an egg is fertilized, not at the moment of birth. Thus human rights begin even in the womb.
LifeSiteNews.com reported on December 22 how Reverend Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D., the director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center,
responded to the AJOG article. Pacholczyk said, “Chervenak, McCullough, and other academicians of their stripe really ought to learn to pick on
those their own size, rather than leveraging their age and educational advantage to mount unjust attacks against those younger and not-yet-educated
human beings still in the womb.”
"Human fetuses or newborns do not need to be able to balance a checkbook or have a nervous system before we will 'grant them moral status,' since
their moral status and dignity doesn't depend on us granting it in the first place," Pacholczyk stated. "Only the most pride-filled academician
could ever suppose that he had the ability to grant moral status to a fellow human being who happens to be very young."
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
They pick on those who cannot speak for themselves, stating that the fact that they cannot speak for themselves justifies their actions.
I'm sure I made it clear, I find this article offencive to the very meaning of human life. They are trying to determine which of us are to be deemed
worthy of life based upon their elitest definitions.