Could "After Birth Abortion" be an acceptable ethical practice?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
There was an interesting ethics discussion published in 2012 in the Journal of Medical Ethics (linked below via the BMJ) that makes the logical case for women to access "after birth abortion".

The authors make a case that foetesus and newborns do not have the same moral status as "actual person".

If criteria (advised recently by the Citizens Assembly for example) such as costs/social status/psychological for the those seeking abortion are good enough reasons for having an abortion (irrespective of whether the foetus is healthy or not) and not all disability is discovered before birth 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.

We're not talking about further stages of development here, just for the couple of days after birth.

Could you see yourself accepting this argument in coming decades?

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? | Journal of Medical Ethics
 


crossman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
1,619
There was an interesting ethics discussion published in 2012 in the Journal of Medical Ethics (linked below via the BMJ) that makes the logical case for women to access "after birth abortion".

The authors make a case that foetesus and newborns do not have the same moral status as "actual person".

If criteria (advised recently by the Citizens Assembly for example) such as costs/social status/psychological for the those seeking abortion are good enough reasons for having an abortion (irrespective of whether the foetus is healthy or not) and not all disability is discovered before birth 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.

We're not talking about further stages of development here, just for the couple of days after birth.

Could you see yourself accepting this argument in coming decades?

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? | Journal of Medical Ethics
I couldn't accept this horrible prospect but I could see pro-choicers doing so.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
54,522
This is barbaric even for many pro-choicers imho. Its also a disturbing rehash of Eugenicist arguments. If you are born, then killing you is murder and the law I suspect would agree.

You can make an argument for abortion on grounds that it effectively pauses a womens career for a while, or that it can threaten her health or life. You can't make that argument after birth, because if she doesnt want to keep the child she can give it up for adoption just as happened to me.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
This is barbaric even for many pro-choicers imho. Its also a disturbing rehash of Eugenicist arguments. If you are born, then killing you is murder and the law I suspect would agree.

You can make an argument for abortion on grounds that it effectively pauses a womens career for a while, or that it can threaten her health or life. You can't make that argument after birth, because if she doesnt want to keep the child she can give it up for adoption just as happened to me.
But not all adoptions go well for those those adopted.

So abortion would have been in the best interest? (I think that's the case being made)

As for eugenics, why is it acceptable before birth and not after?
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,397
It's something of a ridiculous oxymoron. If a foetus/baby has left the woman's body through childbirth how can it be aborted? Other laws come into effect at that point and I doubt you'd get too many takers on the pretend ethics of it.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
It's something of a ridiculous oxymoron. If a foetus/baby has left the woman's body through childbirth how can it be aborted? Other laws come into effect at that point and I doubt doubt you'd get too many takers on the pretend ethics of it.
It's a term used by the authors of the paper "when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible."
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,397
It's a term used by the authors of the paper "when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible."
I've had my fair share of papers passing themselves off as things more weighty! In terms of real life it's a piece of discourse nonsense, like what is taught on those loolah humanities courses English third level specialises in. Nothing wrong with the debating bit there are some perfectly adequate ways used to describe such things already.
 

paulp

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
7,271
I've had my fair share of papers passing themselves off as things more weighty! In terms of real life it's a piece of discourse nonsense, like what is taught on those loolah humanities courses English third level specialises in. Nothing wrong with the debating bit there are some perfectly adequate ways used to describe such things already.
it's part of the pro-life argument, "if you repeal the 8th, you'll be in favour of killing babies next"
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
it's part of the pro-life argument, "if you repeal the 8th, you'll be in favour of killing babies next"
Nope. This was written by pro choice authors.

I think it's quite logical. Did you read the paper linked via the BMJ?
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,030
Twitter
No
I think Ger is beginning to panic. I'm looking forward tremendously to the more bizarre attempts at ethical arm-twisting by the O'Taliban as we get closer to the referendum.

Whispered reports of Dark Knights in the Shires, pro-choice nuns bayonetting babies in the Congo... no... wait
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,963
The argument in favour of abortion is mostly about bodily autonomy of the woman. That argument no longer applies after birth.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
I think Ger is beginning to panic. I'm looking forward tremendously to the more bizarre attempts at ethical arm-twisting by the O'Taliban as we get closer to the referendum.

Whispered reports of Dark Knights in the Shires, pro-choice nuns bayonetting babies in the Congo... no... wait
Don't care for any religion old chap, as you well know, it's all make up to control imo.

More interested in science and logic like the logic in the paper I'm hoping you'll discuss.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? | Journal of Medical Ethics
 

damus

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
23,512
It's a term used by the authors of the paper "when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible."
Did you miss their response and follow-up paper?
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
29,409
The authors aren't proposing it, they're offering the scenario up for discussion. Welzel wasn't proposing tying people to a rail for the trolley problem either.

If you're going to discuss the feasibility of it being implemented in the real world, then it runs into so many legal problems that it's a non-runner.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
The argument in favour of abortion is mostly about bodily autonomy of the woman. That argument no longer applies after birth.
Is it?

Bodily autonomy up until birth is the logical argument when you view the foetus as not having the same status as a woman or other born human being.

What if the foetus has been shown to have the same moral status as the newborn (laid out in the paper)?
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,397
The authors aren't proposing it, they're offering the scenario up for discussion. Welzel wasn't proposing tying people to a rail for the trolley problem either.

If you're going to discuss the feasibility of it being implemented in the real world, then it runs into so many legal problems that it's a non-runner.
Nothing wrong with the question but it ends up being about the ridiculous terminology of the premise.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,030
Twitter
No
Status
Not open for further replies.


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top