Eternal Call

Prenatal Euthanasia: Extermination of Persons

--Earl E. Appleby, Jr.

In view of compromise anti-abortion legislation being introduced in state legislatures across America, Eternal Call thought our readers should read the perspective of CURE, a leading anti-euthanasia organization, on so-called "pro-life" legislation that sanctions the murder of handicapped preborn babies. We urge readers to write for and circulate the "Petition in Defense of Life." Eric Bower, Editor

"There is no reason from the point of view of physiology why fetal humans should be viewed as different from born humans." --John M. Goldenring, Department of Pediatrics, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York

Dr. Goldenring is anything put pro-life. Indeed in his article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, (1985, 11, 198-204), he distinguishes human beings from human persons, a term he finds "highly value-laden" with "many meanings depending on the society in which one lives."

Or dies, we would add.

"A 'person' is a human being accorded full rights, protection and respect," Dr. Goldenring concludes, reminding us that "inherent in the definition of 'person' may be many developmental, religious and social conditions."

Until recently it was commonly assumed that anti-abortion groups of the self-described "pro-life" movement regarded preborn human beings as persons. Indeed there was considerable evidence in support of this assumption.

For example, in the 1979 edition of the Handbook on Abortion, Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke comparing slavery (1857) with abortion (1973) condemn the anti-life proposition that "a baby only becomes a legal person when he is born." Indeed, the Human Life Amendment proposed by the National Right to Life Committee affirmed that:

With respect to the right to life, the word person as used in the Fifth and Fourteenth Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States applies to all human beings irrespective of age, health, function, or condition of dependency, including their unborn offspring at every stage of their biologic development.

Compare the above with the language of "legislation to bar abortion solely as a means of birth control" being offered in several states by purportedly "pro-life" organizations, including state affiliates of the National Right-to-Life Committee.

The model bill declares abortion to be unlawful "when it is being used or sought solely as a method of birth control." It finds that "an abortion is not used or sought solely as a method of birth control" (i.e., in the bill's explicit frame of reference, is lawful) when:

"(a) ...the life of the mother would be endangered or severe and long-lasting physical health damage would result if the fetus were carried to term;

"(b) the pregnancy is the result of rape. . .;

"(c) the pregnancy is the result of incest. . .;

"(d) ...the child would be born with profound and irremediable physical or mental disabilities."

There is little doubt that organizations and individuals that ascribe to the Paramount Human Life Amendment's declaration that "the paramount right to life is vested in each human being at the moment of fertilization without regard to age, health or condition of dependency" will find each of the exceptions explicitly sanctioned by the above bill odious and unacceptable.

This is my personal conviction and, while I have never taken a survey, I suspect that most of CURE's more than hundred advisors as well. However, I am sure that to a man we all are unalterably opposed to the medical murder of "the child (who) would be born with profound and irremediable physical or mental disabilities."

Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE) opposes euthanasia without exception and without compromise. Accordingly, we must condemn without reservation legislation that sanctions euthanasia whether it is prenatal or postnatal.

In the Handbook on Abortion, Dr. and Mrs. Willke affirm that "there is no logic or rational line to draw between the killing of pre-born children because they're defective and, and the killing of a post-born child because he is defective." In How to Teach the Pro-Life Story, the Willkes avow that "pre-natal euthanasia is entirely accurate when describing the killing of an unborn child because he is defective."

While CURE does not believe that any child "is defective," we do agree that line-drawing between prenatal and postnatal euthanasia is irrational. Accordingly, we must oppose legislation that sanctions prenatal euthanasia with the same determination that we oppose legislation sanctioning postnatal euthanasia.

Silence gives consent. We must never consent to the evil of euthanasia. CURE is circulating a Petition in Defense of Life. It reads as follows:

We, the undersigned, oppose euthanasia without compromise and without exception. Accordingly, we oppose any and all legislation which would sanction prenatal euthanasia by explicitly allowing the killing of unborn babies on the grounds of mental or physical impairment or infirmity.

We invite you to join us in defending life by requesting your petition today from CURE.

[Earl Appleby is executive director of Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE), a nationwide network that helps families whose loved ones are endangered by euthanasia.]

The Eternal Call, St. Pius X, 1991