“After birth abortion” sounds like a catchy substitute for words like “infanticide” and “murder” doesn’t it?
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.
The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available. Continue reading
In his encyclical Aeterni Patris, Pope Leo XIII sought to advance the restoration of Christian philosophy against the modern trends of secular philosophy, emerging from Enlightenment rationalism. The critique of modern intellectual errors and the way in which such false thinking manifests itself in the world has deeply shaded my personal reflection on the tragedy of legal abortion.
The funeral for Father Edward “Ed” Hinds will be celebrated today, Saturday, October 31, A.D. 2009 at 10:00am. The Mass will be the Rite of Christian Burial and simulcast live int he Saint Patrick Parish Center Gym, East/West Rooms, and Cafeteria. Additional audio will be provided outside.
This will be followed by a private burial.
The Repast will be at 11:30am at the Corpus Christi Parish Center, 234 Southern Boulevard, Chatham, New Jersey.
Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli of the Diocese of Paterson where Saint Patrick’s at Chatham is located had these moving words to say concerning the death of Fr. Hinds titled, A Life Cut Short: The Mystery of Evil:
Father Edward “Ed” Hinds was found dead in the rectory kitchen of 32 stab wounds late last week in the Diocese of
Paterson located in the area of Chatham, New Jersey. A suspect has been found who is the church janitor, Jose Feliciano. He is currently in a hospital because of an undisclosed ailment and has bail set on him of $1 million.
Details are emerging concerning the case. Mr. Feliciano has had financial and health-related worries. He was recently laid off his second job earlier in the year. Additionally The Star-Ledger (New Jersey) reports:
In addition, Hinds intended to lay off Feliciano because of money problems at St. Patrick Church, said Ken Mullaney, the attorney for the Diocese of Paterson.
Many parishioners are calling this a double tragedy since Mr. Feliciano was also part of the close Chatham community as well as with the parish of Saint Patrick.
For the previous article by the American Catholic click here.
For the most current article by The Star-Ledger as of this posting click here.
For a compilation of the latest news concerning the murder of Fr. Ed Hines click here. (The link may become inactive as time passes.)
Update I: I misspelled Father Edward Hinds name. It is Fr. Hinds, not Fr. Hines.
Update II: Information about Fr. Hinds funeral and more click here.
Father Edward “Ed” Hinds, the pastor of Saint Patrick Church in Chatham, New Jersey, was found slain early Friday morning by parishioners in the rectory when he failed to celebrate the 8:00am Mass.
This morning there was a congregation of roughly 300 parishioners that attended the 8:00 am Mass the day after the slaying. It was a somber and quiet mood as the parish remembered their dear priest who was the only pastor at the church and he also worked at the parish school.
I have had it with the debate over the language used to describe abortion.
The argument that the language of the pro-life movement is responsible for the death of George Tiller is preposterous nonsense. It reduces us to nothing but objects pushed about by the forces of propaganda.
The truth is that one does not need propaganda to become outraged to the point of homicide; one can simply look up the details of what the procedure of abortion involves, particularly the partial-birth abortions performed by Tiller. The cold hard facts, regardless of any political spin or the additional words of any commentator, is quite sufficient.
This post has nothing at all to do with whether or not the murder of George Tiller was morally justifiable or not. That needs to be said upfront. My initial reaction was a bit hasty, and I like others have foot-in-mouth disease. Being a passionate writer who is used to speaking his mind openly has its advantages and drawbacks. If I had a nickel for every statement I made that I later regretted, I’d be having too much fun with my millions to bother posting here at AC
What I do want to more fully understand is exactly how, or perhaps more importantly, why, this event will have disastrous implications for the pro-life movement. I understand that, on one level, it may serve as a pretext for a government crackdown, on restrictions against free-speech, and the like. That is a legitimate concern. What I do not understand is the argument that there are actually people out there whose position on abortion, which in turn hinges upon their position about the ontology of the unborn itself, will change as a result of this.