Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of 'After-Birth Abortions'


Recommended Posts

Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of 'After-Birth Abortions' as Newborns 'are not persons'

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in ?circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.?

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term ?after-birth abortion? as opposed to ?infanticide.?

Why? Because it ?[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ?abortions? in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.? The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents? best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an ?acceptable? life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, ?such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.?

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the ?morally relevant sense.? On this point, the authors write:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ?person? in the sense of ?subject of a moral right to life?. We take ?person? to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

[...]

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are ?potential persons.? The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute ?subjective? moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

The authors counter the argument that these ?potential persons? have the right to reach that potential by stating it is ?over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.?

And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to ?suffer psychological distress? from giving up her child to someone else ? they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them ? then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.

The National Catholic Register thinks that these authors are right ? once you accept their ideas on personhood. The Register states that the argument made by the ethicists is almost pro-life in that it ?highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument?:

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn?t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

First Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn?t mean the law could ? or would ? allow after-birth abortions in future medical procedures, arguments such as ?the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious? began in much the same way in bioethics journals.

Source: TheBlaze.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in abortion up to the age of 8, that way you have a good idea of what you have.

But seriously, I really can't think of any times when an "after-birth" abortion really would be ethical. At that point, the mother is out of danger, adoption is an option, there is no moral reason to consider it. If the baby is developmentally damaged in a way that it won't survive, then have the abortion earlier on.

(or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn

The only way society itself could be damaged by the newborn is if it contained some sort of alien DNA that would release a fungus and destroy humanity.

I'm pro-choice, but this is just stupid: once the baby is born you've made your choice.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incredibly tricky subject, that said, as far as I am concerned, taking a life (human) of any description is tantamount to murder. Something like this treads on a very thin line and while I can see merits in the argument it's just too close to the bone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy...

Seriously, the title is enough for me.

I'm out of here.

What a terrible idea.

Glassed Silver:mac

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy...

Seriously, the title is enough for me.

I'm out of here.

What a terrible idea.

Glassed Silver:mac

Interestingly enough, the same was said about abortion back in the day. Who knows, in 30-40 years, it may just be acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what The Blaze is (it looks like a rag for people who believe in fairy tales) but I'm not sure why they've bothered to run this story as it doesn't seem to talk about anything particularly new. This is standard Utilitarianism and anybody who's read their Peter Singer will be familiar with it.

Of course, it's funny to see Catholics talking about the absurdity of anyone else's position when you consider what they stand for ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Down syndrome is rarely identified before birth.

That's the kind of case that these guys are arguing towards.

Um, there are prenatal tests with up to a 95% accuracy of showing Down Syndrome, which is a livable condition.

I'll stack my kid's condition up against almost anyone's, and even after the fact (he wasn't diagnosed until he was almost 2), abortion still wasn't an option for us (not morally, again, I'm pro-choice).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, the same was said about abortion back in the day. Who knows, in 30-40 years, it may just be acceptable.

I'm not much of a "classical abortion" supporter either.

I'm not nuts about birth control like some politicians, some Catholics and other people who get ridiculous about it, but apart from maybe rape IMHO there is no good in abortions.

Fun side note:

Prenatal tests are a joke.

They pose the risk of seriously hurting the child. So if your child has been a-ok before, it might get injured from that.

Just saying... I'm not totally against prenatal tests, just that I personally wouldn't do it.

Glassed Silver:mac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe the people who agree with this should have been aborted that way then. How can anyone say a baby is not a person?

Your right to decide etc... yadda....

LOL

Not even that lame "it's your body" excuse (of cause there are medical cases where this is a valid argument!) is going anywhere here.

Glassed Silver:mac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe the people who agree with this should have been aborted that way then. How can anyone say a baby is not a person?

Makes sense. Maybe everyone who now agrees with the abortion we have today that is legal should have been aborted that way also?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First abortion, then infanticide, next step euthanasia, it's the slow and steady devaluation of life as a whole disguised as "choice" or some other morally flawed justification

The way this is written is just to make it "OK" for the practice in China and other Countries where killing baby Girls is the norm because in their society that would " be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an ?acceptable? life".

That any so called "ethicist" could argue for something like this shows how flawed their own so called ethics are, and not qualified to do the job

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not much of a "classical abortion" supporter either.

I'm not nuts about birth control like some politicians, some Catholics and other people who get ridiculous about it, but apart from maybe rape IMHO there is no good in abortions.

Fun side note:

Prenatal tests are a joke.

They pose the risk of seriously hurting the child. So if your child has been a-ok before, it might get injured from that.

Just saying... I'm not totally against prenatal tests, just that I personally wouldn't do it.

Glassed Silver:mac

There's a lot of things that could potentially hurt the child that we do every day, like, say, breathing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the most disturbing implication here is hinging one's worth, whether they deserve to live or not, on what others think.

"We take ?person? to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her."

So... the depressed teenager who gets bullied at school, whose parents are kicking him out of the house, and he can't find a job... nobody wants him around, right? So he may as well go ahead and commit suicide, like he's fantasized about for months, right?

Honestly, this article is just insane.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

That paragraph is making me extremely uneasy. It is not just right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of things that could potentially hurt the child that we do every day, like, say, breathing.

Nice try.

But if you had actual knowledge about these methods of diagnosis you'd know they don't play in the same league as unpreventable risks.

Glassed Silver:mac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First abortion, then infanticide, next step euthanasia, it's the slow and steady devaluation of life as a whole disguised as "choice" or some other morally flawed justification

The way this is written is just to make it "OK" for the practice in China and other Countries where killing baby Girls is the norm because in their society that would " be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an ?acceptable? life".

That any so called "ethicist" could argue for something like this shows how flawed their own so called ethics are, and not qualified to do the job

First of all, I will point out that I am personally against abortion. I can, however, see the point these people are making at the purpose it serves. They are not saying that after-birth abortions are morally correct and they are not saying before-birth abortions are incorrect. They are saying the two are exactly the same in certain circumstances, and based on ethics, not morals, they are 100% correct. The reasons that are used to justify killing an unborn child are just as valid shortly after birth.

You need to look up what ethics is before making a judgment on the authors. Ethics is not the same as morals. Ethics are neutral and can never be good or bad. If someone has bad ethics, it doesn't mean anything more than that they are not following a very specific decision making process. Under utilitarianism, what is being suggested here is actually ethical. It makes the most people happy. This action would also be perfectly fine under egoism which is the same form of ethics used to justify abortions to begin with.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I will point out that I am personally against abortion. I can, however, see the point these people are making at the purpose it serves. They are not saying that after-birth abortions are morally correct and they are not saying before-birth abortions are incorrect. They are saying the two are exactly the same in certain circumstances, and based on ethics, not morals, they are 100% correct. The reasons that are used to justify killing an unborn child are just as valid shortly after birth.

You need to look up what ethics is before making a judgment on the authors. Ethics is not the same as morals. Ethics are neutral and can never be good or bad. If someone has bad ethics, it doesn't mean anything more than that they are not following a very specific decision making process. Under utilitarianism, what is being suggested here is actually ethical. It makes the most people happy. This action would also be perfectly fine under egoism which is the same form of ethics used to justify abortions to begin with.

Possibly the post of the day for me. (Y)

Well explained, I didn't bother explaining I must admit! :p

Glassed Silver:mac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pro choice, but this is a bridge too far. Reminds me too much of eugenics and some crazy German.

You mean a crazy Austrian! :p

I'm not for shifting all the blame, but "he" was an Austrian.

Glassed Silver:mac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean a crazy Austrian! :p

I'm not for shifting all the blame, but "he" was an Austrian.

Glassed Silver:mac

First people thinking morals and ethics are the same thing, then thinking Hilter was German. People have their facts all kinds of backwards today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try.

But if you had actual knowledge about these methods of diagnosis you'd know they don't play in the same league as unpreventable risks.

Glassed Silver:mac

Actually, I do, I went through a lot of it with my own child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.