You are here: Home / The Pastor's Blog / The Abortion of Ethics

The Abortion of Ethics

Some ethics "experts" have talked themselves out of a job by declaring newborns eligible for "after-birth abortion" because newborns are "morally irrelevant"
The Abortion of Ethics

A keeper? Uh, maybe not . . .


It is impossible to keep up with all the horrid news stories which need to be answered and commented upon from a biblical point of view.  I don't even try to do so.  It would be a full-time job in itself.

But then there are those occasions when I hear of something that is remarkably horrid, not just your average horror.  Here's the title of the article that made me stop, pick my jaw off the floor, and start writing:

Killing Babies No Different From Abortion, Experts Say

Once again, I am at a loss to know where I should start in pointing out what is wrong here.  And I'm only talking about the headline.  The article itself is nothing less than overwhelmingly evil.

First, I'll address the term "experts".  According to the article, the experts being quoted are Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.  Their article was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. That leads us to believe these two are experts in ethics in general, and medical ethics in particular.

Before reading the article, I thought I had a fairly accurate understanding of the term "ethics".  But after reading this headline I'm beginning to doubt myself.  Exactly what is the definition of "ethics"?  And what kind of person would an ethics expert be?  Let's do a systems check and see if my thinking is accurate here.  According to Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

"Of, or belonging to, morals; treating of the moral feelings or duties; containing precepts of morality; moral; as, ethic discourses or epistles; an ethical system; ethical philosophy."

Yep.  That's what I thought.  Ethics deals with morals.  But that was the definition in 1828.  This is 2012.  Maybe the word doesn't mean what it used to, like the word "gay".  So let's look for a more modern, updated, enlightened definition from

"that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions."

It sounds like they are saying ethics has something to do with morality: "rightness and wrongness", "goodness and badness", i.e. morality.

However, these guys are writing for the Journal of Medical Ethics. Maybe there's something different about morality in the world of medicine that I'm not aware of.  There are a lot of memos sent around which I never seem to get.  Maybe this was one of them.  Let's see what a medical dictionary says about ethics:

"The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the conduct of the members of a profession."

That sheds some light the subject.  It appears that ethics (i.e. morality) are dependent upon the particular profession of a person.  So the medical ethics of Mr. Giubilini and Ms. Minerva may differ from the ethics of, say, someone in an agricultural profession or a religious "profession" (if I may call it that).

In other words, ethical and moral standards are dependent upon the context in which they are used.  Morality is relative.  There are no moral absolutes like the ones in the Bible.  For example: "You shall not murder."

But in a medical context, according to these two experts, it is ethical (i.e. moral) to perform what they refer to as an "after-birth abortion".

According to me, an expert in religious ethics (comparatively speaking), I say these two medical ethics experts don't understand what the term "ethics" means, either in a medical context or any other context.  I (the self-proclaimed expert in religious, or more specifically, Christian ethics) have concluded that they also do not understand the term "murder": "to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously."

I suppose I could spend more time defining terms, but I will assume you who are reading this have a fair grasp of what barbarism is.  And the "after-birth abortion" of perfectly healthy babies, for whatever philosophical or "ethical" reason, would in fact be barbaric in every sense of that word.

The realm of medical ethics might be more accurately described as the practice of verbal gymnastics.  I'm not the only one who thinks this:

Referring to the term "after-birth abortion", [one critic] added: "This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy.  I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide."

Precisely.  I encourage you to read the article here.  Never before have we been subjected to so much evil thinking parading as scholastic expertise.  For "medical ethics experts" to put forward such a blatant and demonstrably wicked premise as being "ethical" (i.e. moral) is itself immoral.  We're being told it is not just A-OK to murder our unborn children for any or no reason at all, but that we have the right to murder the children we've already given birth to up until the time they become bonafide "persons", which the medical ethics experts also define for us.  (Just read the article.)

Two weeks ago, Sarah Elizabeth Gentner came into our world.  She is the latest addition to the Grace Fellowship family, weighing in at about six pounds upon arrival.  (Obviously, the infant pictured above is not her.)  But since she's so small, and since she isn't really a "person" yet (even tho her, or "its" parents think it is and gave it a name), then I suppose the parents should still have the option of killing it if they determine it just isn't worth the trouble.

It would be ethical, right?

Document Actions

Times & Locations

- Sunday Schedule

10:00 AM - Worship Service

11:30 PM - Pot-Providence Brunch & Discussion

Thursday Night Cyber Hangout

The Harris Township Lions Club
130 S. Academy St.
Boalsburg, PA 16827


View Larger Map