SteemChurch:Abortion and infanticide.

Is abortion and infanticide the same?

Two researchers have published an article in the journal "Journal of Medical Ethics" in which they argue that killing a newborn does not differ from a moral point of view, to perform an abortion. His argument is based on the fact that a fetus and a newborn are two beings "morally equivalent" and defend that the same reasons that justify the abortion of a fetus also serve for infanticide, in such a way that "if after birth if an unidentified disease was detected during pregnancy, if something goes wrong during childbirth or if any economic, social or psychological circumstance changes and poses an unbearable burden, "people should have the option of not being forced to take charge of the child.
His statements have not left anyone indifferent, being treated in many cases as "cruel, vile or murderous."

Source

How can a society survive when two totally contradictory activities are officially approved and carried out with state support? Can a society survive in which some state personnel save lives and another destroys other identical lives? What kind of concept of society is this?
All this leads us to think that we are at a critical point: either we reverse, or we pull forward with all the consequences. But what we fear, is that a society that advances along this path, has the intention of reaching the end. It begins with abortion exclusively in which the life of the mother is in danger, and quickly it becomes that any excuse serves to abort, but from there there is not much distance to infanticide, euthanasia or other many things that give us panic until to mention.

What makes us human?

Where should we place the limit of what is moral and immoral? Undoubtedly, to answer this question, we have to start by determining when we become "human".
Some consider that a fetus becomes human when it is "viable", that is, from the moment in which the fetus, if born prematurely, would be able to survive. But modern medical techniques increasingly advance that moment.
Others say that you become a person when the fetus has all the organs formed, but by that rule of three, a mutilated would cease to be human.
Others think that the birth itself is the crucial moment, but the photographs of the child taken before birth show that there is no fundamental difference between the unborn and the newborn.
Some have argued that this has to do with being aware of our existence. This theory, which is gaining more popularity every day, tells us that a fetus is not aware of itself, therefore, it is not a human being. But let's not forget that he has the same consciousness as a newborn, or a man in a coma, or an Alzheimer's patient. Accepting this conception of what is "human" will lead us to commit worse atrocities than we now see.
Others ask themselves: are they capable of choosing, of exercising autonomy? Do they manifest morally relevant characteristics? For them, being considered "person" depends on the function that each one plays, of what they can do. It is as if every human being should pass an exam before being considered "one of ours", as if it were something that we should earn. Furthermore, it not only serves to determine who is human, but also differentiates between human beings based on their function and independence within society. This theory is taking root strongly in our modern world, especially in the "rich" countries.
In contrast to all these theories, the biblical perspective of human dignity does not depend on what we have to gain or demonstrate, but it is intrinsic to the human being by the way we have been made.

The issue brings back to the table the complex debate on abortion, which includes legal, theological, ethical, social and personal aspects.

The logic of the argument
To begin with, we have to admit that the logic of the argument of these researchers is impeccable: If you can kill a fetus, you can kill a baby, because the only thing that differentiates them is their location.
However, by putting it in this "brutal" way, even the abortion advocates themselves have felt uncomfortable. Of course, it is not the same to kill a baby that we do not see his face or hear his cry, that one we have before our eyes! It is easier to kill an "ultrasound" than a child who smiles at us! There are articles that make us reflect and we hope that it will serve to awaken the consciences of those who have come to regard as good or normal the fact that in many "civilized" countries thousands of abortions are practiced constantly. Because it is incoherent, and very hypocritical, to be outraged by these investigators and at the same time to take for granted a practice as ruthless as that of abortion.
But the article also shows once again that there are many fundamental values ​​that are in crisis, and start to scare us how far we can go along this path. What will governments do to "harmonize" these inconsistencies? Will they be more restrictive with abortion, or will they expand the legislation to include newborns too?

Many medical professionals also see these legal contradictions and expect some response. How is it possible that in two adjacent operating rooms of a large hospital, a team of highly qualified specialists can be carrying out a very complex intervention to save the life of a fetus, and in the one next door is practicing an abortion? But imagine an even more shocking situation: let us suppose that abortion performed for strictly "medical" reasons (which in some legislations can be practiced at any stage of pregnancy), is not achieved with "success" and the fetus is born alive. Immediately, this baby, who is probably in a critical situation, will be taken to the operating room next door to try to save his life. Suddenly, he has gone from being completely unprotected and under sentence of death, to enjoy all the rights of the law. How is it possible for a medical system, a legal corpus and a society to contemplate and approve mutually contradictory procedures? It seems that both operating rooms operated under mutually contradictory ethical conceptions. In the first case, the baby's life depends on the wishes of the parents, in fact, ultimately, only the desire of the mother, since in this particular area, the father has very few legal rights, and in the In the second case, the baby's life is protected by law.

Man from the biblical perspective.

According to the creation account found in Genesis (Gen 1: 26-27), man was created "in the image of God." What does this fact mean?
Some have seen in it that man shares with God certain capacities or attributes: rationality, creativity and spirituality. But the Bible emphasizes that beyond what we can do, or the duties that God has assigned us, is what we are by creation.
This "image of God", which was given to man at the time of his creation, and which is transferred from generation to generation, is what makes all human life have a unique dignity and value. It does not depend on what we do, but on what we are by creation. Without a doubt, this has great implications.

1. The first one is that we must recognize that we are dependent beings. We do not make ourselves, we are not autonomous individuals, we are the image of God, and therefore, the dignity of our humanity is derived; it comes from Him whose image we carry. Of course, for a society as impregnated with liberal individualism as ours, this idea is unacceptable, but the truth is that these claims of autonomy are a modern fantasy, totally removed from the reality of our relationship with the rest of the universe. Biblical revelation insists on emphasizing our dependence as creatures (Job 10: 8-12) (Jer 10:23).

2. Secondly, it implies the equality of all human beings. We are all equal because we carry the same image of God: man is equal to woman, adults are equal to children, the powerful are equal to the weak, the disabled are equal to the healthy, the so-called non-people are equal to people (Job 31:15) (Pr 22: 2).

3. We must treat all human beings with respect. Some modern philosophers have a tendency to perceive the weak, the insane, the disabled, with some contempt; They are non-people, they do not have autonomy, they do not count, their biology is second-class, their cerebral cortex is dysfunctional. But what is characteristic of authentic Christian love for the disabled, the sick and the dying is not grief but respect. The abuse, manipulation or mistreatment of a human being is a disdain for God (Pr 14:31).

4. We must not stop feeling amazed at the mystery that each human being supposes. The same amazement that a father and mother feel at the time of the birth of their child. We are afraid that the loss of feeling of astonishment is especially frequent among health professionals and those who care for people. They fall into routine and cynicism. They have seen everything. They do their work in a mechanical way. But the Christian way of thinking demands that we maintain a feeling of awe before every human being.

5. It is important to protect all human life because it is sacrosanct to bear the image of God. And especially the weak, those who are more vulnerable to manipulation and abuse; like children, the sick, the disabled, the elderly, or fetuses.
   We also want to mention at this point Psalm 139 where we find important statements about prenatal existence.
   (Psalm 139: 13-16) "For you formed my bowels, you made me in my mother's womb, I will praise you, for your wonderful works are wonderful, I am amazed, and my soul knows it very well. from you my body, well that in occult I was formed, and interwoven in the deepest part of the earth, my embryo saw your eyes, and in your book were written all those things that were then formed, without missing one of them. "

It seems that the psalmist echoes the creation accounts we find in Genesis: "Woven into the depths of the earth," like Adam who was formed from the dust of the earth. God is the great potter who shapes the amorphous clay. With these images of the weaver and the potter so familiar from the ancient Near East, the psalmist acknowledges that God is the one who created him even in his embryonic state.
Then he also talks about God's knowledge of him when he was still in that state: "My embryo saw your eyes". Of course the emphasis is not on the fetus being aware of God, but on the fact that God knew the fetus. The psalmist knew that God his Creator loved him long before he could respond to him in a conscious relationship. And so it is with all of us. This means that already in the womb of our mothers we were people because God already knew us and loved us. The prophets also shared this belief (Is 49: 1,5).

And we can also see in the reflections that the psalmist makes throughout the Psalm that in this relationship with God there was a continuity. Although when he was writing he was already an adult, however, when looking at the past until the time when he was not yet born, he is aware that he was the same person. He does not recognize any discontinuity between his being before birth or after.

When does human life begin?

The truth is that the great advances in scientific knowledge confirm that there is no stage of fetal development that involves a biological discontinuity that could be interpreted as the transition from an animal to a human form. If there is any discontinuity in the formation of the individual, it would seem to focus on the moment of fertilization, when a unique human genetic code is created.
But the philosophers refer to the embryo and the fetus as "a potential person," meaning that we should not treat him as a person yet. However, at what point do you stop being "a potential person" to become a "person"?
From the Christian perspective, we are always becoming something else until we reach our final destination, which is none other than to fully recover the image of God that we lost because of sin.
But even those who do not share this Christian hope, clearly perceive that the human being is in continuous progress: from an embryo to a fetus, then to a baby, later comes puberty, adolescence, a career, marriage. .. old age and death. At what point in human life is the state of "potential person" left? Does a baby depend less on his mother than a fetus? Should we think that it is at the moment that we learn to speak? When we come to think and reason abstractly? When are we ready to live in society? When are we sexually mature? The criterion of "potentiality" is so arbitrary and dangerous that the border could be placed at any stage of human life, with the risk of leaving some outside.

The mother and the child are two different human beings.

The fact that the embryo is inside the mother's body does not mean that it is part of the mother's body. Modern medical science confirms that at the moment when the ovum is fertilized by the penetration of sperm, the twenty-three pairs of chromosomes are complete; the zygote has a unique genotype that is different from that of both parents; sex, size and shape, color of skin, eyes and hair, temperament and intelligence of the child are already determined.
Many pregnant mothers corroborate these facts with their own experience in expressing their sense of carrying in their womb a living creature.
On the contrary, abortion advocates emphasize the right that women have to choose what to do with their bodies. Of course, for them the embryo is considered a cyst or a tumor that they have every right to get rid of. But as we have already said, science affirms that it is a different being from the mother, although it depends on her for her survival. In any case, the fact that he depends on her does not give him the right to kill him, but increases his responsibility to take care of him. Even in the animal kingdom it is common to see mothers defend and care for their young, to what degree of dehumanization have we arrived?
Even the very experience of many women who have aborted confirms this fact. If the only thing that was removed was something like a cyst or a tumor, it would not affect them later, but the fact is that many women feel after aborting a deep sadness, pain and remorse. It is as if the abortion was a deep scar that penetrates them. However, although many are affected, most never manifest this suffering, not even their best friends and confidants.
Abortion and infanticide; depraved practices of antiquity
The debate on abortion and infanticide is very old in the history of Western civilization. Both practices were well known in ancient Greece and Rome and were backed by many important philosophers and writers.
In the "Republic" of Plato, infanticide was considered essential to maintain the quality of citizenship: "The offspring of the inferior and all those born with defects will be eliminated in secret, so that no one knows what has happened to them. . "
Aristotle supported a law that guaranteed the compulsory abandonment of all malformed babies: "With regard to the abandonment or upbringing of children born, there must be a law prohibiting the raising of deformed children."
Seneca, in his treatise "Sobre la ira", wrote: "We beat the rabid dogs on the head, we kill the wild and wild ox, we destroy the unnatural progeny, we even drown the children who, at birth, are weak or abnormal, however, it is not anger, but reason, that separates the harmful from the healthy. "
One of the major concerns of the leaders of the Greek city states was that the excess population would lead to famine and social disintegration. It was considered that abortion and infanticide were completely logical and reasonable ways to avoid the problem.
There were no laws prohibiting the killing of sick or malformed babies, and even healthy newborns often lacked a legal status or social norm to protect them.
It is possible to identify three assumptions underlying the culture of the time.
The belief that a human life had no inherent value, but acquired it some time after birth. No writer seems to have suggested the possibility that the life of the fetus or, even, of a newborn had intrinsic value.
It was assumed that the value of a life essentially lay in its usefulness to parents, in part, but above all to the State as a future citizen. The fetus or healthy newborn was a farmer, soldier or potential mother, provided he was accepted as a useful member of society because of the possibility that he would make a worthy contribution to it. Thus, the value of the fetus or the newborn resided entirely in its potential to make a future contribution to society.
It used to be accepted that health and physical integrity were essential not only for survival, but for human dignity.

In sharp contrast to all this, the Jewish world of that time manifested a radically different attitude towards the fetus and the newborn. This was due to the influence of the Word of God, which taught that any human being, newborn or adult, deformed or healthy, slave or free, has an intrinsic value as a unique expression of the image of God.

Upon his arrival, Jesus endorsed the Old Testament vision of the importance of babies and children and, in a sense, adopted a more radical position.
He taught that unless we become like children, we can not enter the kingdom of God (Mt 18: 3).

He preached that "welcoming" a young child in the name of Jesus was tantamount to giving it to him in person and to the Father who sent him (Mark 9: 36-37).
On the contrary, those who would "trip" a little one would be punished with great severity (Mark 9:42).

Unlike the religious teachers of his day, Jesus emphasized the importance of children, and it is evident that he had a special affection for them. He rebuked his disciples for preventing children from approaching him to bless them, and he did everything possible to dedicate time to them (Mark 10: 13-16).

• The law should always defend the most defenseless
  Any society that tolerates these things, and even worse, that favors them through legislation, has ceased to be civilized. Respect for human life is an indispensable characteristic for a civilized and humanitarian society.
  In this sense, we can not say that our current society is better than the old civilizations. In fact, modern abortion is even worse than the old abandonment of children, since it has been commercialized and has become, at least for some doctors and clinics, a highly lucrative practice.
  And you just have to see the brutal techniques that are used to end the life of the unborn to realize that legally allowing something like this is completely inhuman.

Source

In contrast to all this, the Law of God protects the defenseless (Deut 10: 17-19). Widows, orphans and foreigners symbolize those who were most vulnerable in the social structures of ancient Israel. But God not only declares himself defender of the socially defenseless, but he sends his people to defend them in his name. A special responsibility is placed on the rulers to create social structures that protect the weak. Who are the defenseless today? The fetus, the newborn, the disabled child, the adult with brain damage, the elderly person suffering from Alzheimer's disease and the psychiatric patient. We do not have to look far to find them.
But modern legislation seems to go in the opposite direction to Biblical principles. In all of them, only the mother is taken into account, the helpless child being completely ignored.
In fact, even the father himself has no say in the matter of abortion. Only the woman can decide. Although once the baby is born both will have the same responsibilities.
But in all this there is a tragic irony. Although abortion was initially hailed by feminists as an instrument of power that freed them from patriarchal oppression, reality in many cases is different. Many women in our society resort to abortion not as an exercise of their free will, but because they fear that their partner will abandon them if they go ahead with pregnancy. The very availability of abortion on demand means that, in practice, a woman has to give her partner a reason, not to have an abortion, but to continue with the pregnancy. Liberal rules on abortion allow men to use women sexually without fear of the consequences of fatherhood. Using the crude expression of a feminist: the liberal policy on abortion allows men to "fill the woman, empty her and replenish her."

Conclusions

Social progress should lead us to protect and help children since they exist in the womb of their mother. This is our obligation as a modern and civilized society.
A society that only seeks excuses to live comfortably and that has no respect for human life, is witnessing its own self-destruction.

We must call things by their names. How can we talk about "ending a pregnancy" if what is terminated is the life of a child? And how can we call today's common abortion "therapeutic" (a term originally used only when the life of the mother was in danger), if pregnancy is not a disease that requires therapy and what abortion causes is not a cure but a death? And how can some think of abortion as a contraceptive, if what it does is not prevent conception but destroy the already conceived being? We must have the courage to speak with precision. The induced abortion is feticide, the deliberate destruction of an unborn child, the shedding of innocent blood.

But we want to end these reflections with the words of a woman who commented on her pregnancy experience in the following way: "Pregnancy is, in itself, a symbol of profound hospitality, it is the surrender of your body to the life of another. share everything we have, our cell structure, our bloodstream, our food, our oxygen, it means saying "welcome" with each breath, with each heartbeat, and many mothers welcome that without taking into account the demands that it entails Your own comfort, your health or your life, and the demands of this hospitality are greater than almost none of your own.The growing fetus is given to understand that here there is love, a warm environment, a safe place. In the hidden and silent the miracle is woven ... "

Thank you @druids for my beautiful logo