When you read the previous sentence, did you think you were reading about a pro-life study? In the hands of ethicists who are not grounded in biblical thinking, this equivalence could be justification for infanticide.
Two ethicists try to make the case that a newborn has no right to life.
Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, the authors of an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, state that there is no logical difference between aborting a pre-born baby and murdering a newborn. Based on this claim, they try to make the case that the newborn has no right to life because they do not consider newborns “actual people.”* If neither a fetus nor a newborn can value life, there is no moral reason to prohibit abortion and infanticide, they argue.
But God values life, whether unborn or newborn. Creationist OB/GYN Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell summarizes the biblical position: “Human life is a continuum that begins with formation of the zygote at fertilization and continues uninterrupted until death. Logically,” she adds, “there is no distinction between the willful destruction of a human person at one phase or another.”
The article sparked outrage, but the journal’s editor came to the ethicists’ defense, arguing that they were engaged in a “pure exercise of logic: if X, then Y . . . .” So who decides what is ethical or right? Apart from God’s Word, any answer is just human opinion. The only way to avoid descent into Nazi-like atrocities in the name of a “logical ethical system” is to recognize a power outside of and superior to human opinion. Since God created people and we are made in His image, He is the only One in a position of moral authority to settle the issue. And He considers life precious from the beginning (Psalm 139:13–16).
* “Journal of Medical Ethics Stands by Publication of ‘After-Birth Abortions’ Article,” The Blaze, February 28, 2012, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/journal-of-medical-ethics-stands-by-publication-of-after-birth-abortions-article/