Within this past month, a firestorm has been heating up on Twitter, Facebook, etc., about what was called after-birth abortion. The term was coined by two philosophers who wrote an article in 2011, which was first published in the Journal of Medical Ethics in its online edition on 23 February 2012. The article has the following 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.
The arguments that they make challenge secular liberals more than theological conservatives. The article argues for a continuation of the arguments made by absolute pro-choice supporters. That branch of pro-choice argues that a fetus does not become a person until it is born, until it is separated from the mother’s body. The article argues that the fetus does not became a full person even then. Studies in neurological development shows that a baby keeps neurologically developing even after birth. Thus, they argue, a baby is not a person quite yet. They continue the argument that the baby has the potential to become a person. But, since a baby is not a person yet, this means that the mother can still choose to “abort” the child for any reason even after it is born.
At that time, the article caused controversy, with the journal even having to defend itself for publishing the article. At least two Republican Congress members brought this up while the House was in session. But, that is not why I am writing this post. I am writing this post because it is two years later and something profoundly inappropriate has happened.
For some reason, this story was picked up again by the TV editorialist, Brit Hume, and it has gained traction again. But, it has gained traction in all the wrong ways. First, it was tweeted as though it were something recent. Second, an editorial article on the journal article was cited, rather than the actual journal article. Third, Brit Hume painted a target on the editorial writer (though it may not have been on purpose).
Here is the big problem. The editorial article he cites as “now” was actually written two years ago. The editorial article itself was AGAINST the practice, but pointed out the philosophical challenges that secular liberals had to answer. None of that matters. A few days ago, you could almost hear the giant sucking sound of the outrage machine making the rounds. The writer of the editorial article, William Saletan, has been receiving angry tweets. Some pro-lifer even posted Mr. Saletan’s twitter handle and urged people to bombard his account. Given that Mr. Saletan said that the idea was crazy IN HIS ORIGINAL POST TWO YEARS AGO, this confirmed two thing to pro-choice people. One is that pro-life people obviously do not know how to read. And, two, pro-life people obviously do not believe in loving their neighbor.
As a result of the kerfuffle, Mr. Saletan was forced to post a follow-up article several days ago to point out that he had called the idea crazy two years ago and that he was not the author of the article, he was merely an editorial writer reporting on the original journal article. Needless to say, he took a few choice shots at the “right-wing echo sphere.” In this case, the shots were well deserved. I re-read the original article, and Mr. Saletan did call the idea crazy. And, it is true that he was merely reporting on the challenges that the story would bring to secular liberals. If anything, for those of us who are pro-life, the original story actually gave us philosophical tools to use to challenge pro-choice assertions!
And yet, an innocent man has been maligned to the point that he has had to defend himself publicly. Worse, pro-lifers have come off looking vindictive and silly.
Folks, please read original articles before you pass on somebody’s tweet, or Facebook action alert! Rather than helping a cause you believe in, you may end up hurting the cause and damaging an innocent person. In Christian language, that is called a serious sin. Remember slander and gossip are listed as serious sins by both the Apostles James and Paul.
This is true regardless of ideology (although I have to say that the right is more guilty these days). PLEASE verify before posting! Thank you!
Father Ernesto,
Thank you for your learned insights. It has been a while since I have touched base with you. I tapped your E Mail but it did not work. I would like to catch up with you.
In regard your column above, I deal regularly with the overstatements and mistatements of the right. No doubt it happens on all sides but the people in my community being both religious and very patriotic are unusually susceptible to Hume, Fox,etc.
An interesting read is “The Loudest Voice in the Room” by Gabriel Sherman.
Social media is nothing more than a demoralizing, anti-social time-suck. It would behoove us all to just top using it entirely. Nothing good comes of social media. it’s NOT a valid form of communication in any sense. It’s done nothing but turn EVERYONE, regardless of political leaning, into massive jerk keyboard warriors. Our time would be better spent readin the church fathers and the lives of the saints.
I first wrote this blog post six years ago. At that time, there was a blogosphere and social media was still developing into what it is today. Today the blogosphere has essentially disappeared. Twitter and Instagram “influencers” rule the roost. Most social media has indeed become very demoralizing. It is a very sad situation.