In the UK Journal of Medical Ethics (May 2013), two philosophers, Alberto Guibilini (England) and Francesca Minerva (Belgium), both post-doctoral fellows, lay out a reasoned case for what they call "after-birth abortion." Two of their premises are: (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, and (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant.

Their conclusion: "after-birth abortion (infanticide) is a viable option for parents."

Canada is debating whether assisted suicide should be available to children under 18 as an "inherent right to be free from suffering" (Medscape March 11, 2016). (Belgium and the Netherlands have already legalized child euthanasia.)

Where are we positioned on this ethical landscape? We're aborting 600,000 children yearly, and have dabbled with partial birth abortions and assisted suicide. Do our children have an inherent right to be "free from suffering"? Dr. Ronald Pies saw as the core issue those "adolescents with serious but treatable mental illnesses who want to end their lives." (Psychiatric Times, May 2, 2016)

The core issue, however, is much broader: How do we, as a nation and as individuals, morally and ethically defend our values and actions before God?

Robert Emmett

Grass Valley