Jan Lacher forwarded me the Journal of Medical Ethics editorial response to the negative comments they are receiving on the article they published, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
(Yes, I know, I just wrote yesterday not to give this more attention than it deserves.)
I’m not even sure where to begin!
Even considering the writing errors and dropped words (obviously it was written in a hurry; these errors are not typically acceptable for a prestigious journal), the straw-man arguments, and the cherry-picking of comments to make the opposition look dumb and/or racist, the most striking thing to me was how shocked the editor was.
Could anyone really be shocked that this article would receive such an emotional response?
Actually, I believe he was shocked; I don’t believe the editor was being disingenuous.
We all tend to hang out with people like us. In an interesting article from some years back, Why everyone you know thinks just like you, Shankar Vedantam pointed to research that suggested we can discover a person’s political views by knowing the views of their friends.
So, if the editor, Julian Savulescu, behaves like most of us, he spends most of his time with people who believe what he believes, which creates a self-justifying cycle about what is and is not acceptable to think and talk about.
In this case he tells us what he believes:
However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. . .
The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument.
See the problem? Quite a few of us don’t believe the killing of vulnerable people – be they unborn or born – is worthy of intellectual engagement because it is inherently wrong. Therefore, there can be no well reasoned argument in defense of this inherently wrong thing.
Moreover, they do believe in Truth, moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas and moral outlooks – they simply call it rational argument.
In this case, their rational argument begins with the premise that bigger, stronger people get to make decisions about the worth of smaller, weaker people.
I’m going to guess that Dr. Savulescu hangs out with people much like himself, so he doesn’t run into folks like us too often. It is easy to caricature and dismiss people you don’t know and don’t respect – I’m tempted to do so all the time until God reminds me he saved me while I was still a sinner.
Thus, we should not be surprised at their confusion at people being genuinely angry, nor should we be surprised at their dismissing our arguments as being irrational.
So, here’s the real challenge for people living the life of disability – we have to constantly repeat ourselves about the value of all human life, including those who live with disabilities. This is so self-evident to us that we can forget that not everyone agrees.
Clearly, not everyone agrees.
That’s ok. Someday our persistence in telling and retelling an old, old truth will be rewarded:
And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.
(Galatians 6:9-10 ESV)
The Works of God 
The topics over the last few days have reminded me of a great sermon by Dr. Piper. I thought that I would put a link to it here.
“We have no reason to think that there is any morally or spiritually significant difference between this baby and a one-month-old outside the womb. All the differences are morally and spiritually negligible. If it is wrong to kill a newborn, it is wrong to kill this baby in the womb.”
Dr. John Piper – Born Blind for the Glory of God- January 24 2010
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/born-blind-for-the-glory-of-god?lang=en
“He doesn’t run into folks like us too often.”
That’s exactly the point. If we constantly repeat ourselves about the value of human life but only talk to one another, we’re preaching to the choir. We need to become intentional in building relationships with those with platforms of influence in academia, media and the government.
“Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
This is scary. It just sounds like Hitler. They justify killing by saying these babies have no rights and aren’t actually people.
[…] Knight’s blog The Works of God has covered the story and the horrific response the scientists have received from some people very […]
The main thesis of the paper can be found in the abstract:
“… the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
A key element of the argument is that claims are only being made about cases where abortion is already legal (“… permissible in all the cases where abortion is…”). Without this premise, the authors are making no claims. Further, I think that this single premise goes a long way in suggesting that the arguments of the paper are logical, even if the conclusions drawn are found to be wrong.
A more complete discussion of this can be found here:
http://www.jleake.com/post/19239418123/logic-and-abortion