Journal of Medical Ethics (2012): ‘After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’

My thanks to the person who’s just alerted me to this. Women across the developed world have had access to virtually infallible contraception for 40+ years.  Feminists argue for the right of women to choose to have their pregnancies ‘terminated’ on a number of grounds, including the grounds that the foetus isn’t capable of independent existence before around 23/24 weeks. But a newborn baby is no more capable of independent existence than a foetus – nor, arguably, is an infant, or a young child. On what grounds would feminists object to women having the ‘choice’ to kill them too?

Ethicists are working towards giving women that power, arguing for them to have the power to have newborn babies killed, even perfectly healthy ones… even when the baby could be given up for adoption. From Journal of Medical Ethics:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

The full Abstract of the paper:

“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 full Conclusions of the paper:

“If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

Two considerations need to be added.

First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for nonmedical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.”

Advertisements

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.