Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
Infanticide—the slippery slope, Dawkins not sure, Ancient abstractions, Tidying up God? Broth for the primordial soup
Ethicists’ logical conclusion could reclassify infanticide as a form of contraception.
Dawkins, Canterbury, and the Baroness—agnosticism, compromise, and tolerance
South Africa’s “earliest known evidence of abstract thought”
Editorials debate the value of a sanitized Bible.
Stable molecules still don’t hold the secret spark of life.
The backlash of Giubilini and Minerva’s publication has been outrage on the part of many people beyond the pro-life crowd. Many describe this “call for legalized infanticide as chilling and an ‘inhumane defence of child destruction.’”4 As the disapproving publicity has mounted, Minerva—who says she has received threats (which we would never approve)—has expressed surprise at “the overwhelmingly negative reaction”5 and said the article has been “taken out of its academic and theoretical context.”6 She says, “I wish I could explain to people it is not a policy—and I’m not suggesting that and I’m not encouraging that.”7
While we of course agree that the only difference between a baby before and after birth is “a difference in geography,”8 the extensive reasoning provided by Minerva and Giubilini to re-define a human baby as a non-person and deprive it of any right to life provide a dangerous ethical statement. Words have consequences. Words have power. These words were published in a reputable medical journal of ethics. No caveats stating “This is just a theory intended to call attention to the absurdity of allowing late-term abortions” or “This is just an academic discussion intended to provoke thought not policy change” were attached to the piece. On the contrary, the only situation on which these authors declined to make a declarative judgment was the age at which a baby passes into personhood. And these words can be used by the unscrupulous—or those the majority of us would consider uncivilized, regardless of our religious persuasion—to grease the slippery slope to such horrible ends.
Remember, if you see a news story that might merit some attention, let us know about it! (Note: if the story originates from the Associated Press, Fox News, MSNBC, the New York Times, or another major national media outlet, we will most likely have already heard about it.) And thanks to all of our readers who have submitted great news tips to us. If you didn’t catch last week’s News to Note, why not take a look at it now? See you next week!
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth.