So-called ‘Ethics’ hits a new low

The Blaze 27 Feb 2012
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.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/

Share

7 comments for “So-called ‘Ethics’ hits a new low

  1. 29 February 2012 at 2:49 pm

    Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue … that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

    I know someone who feels the same way: that there isn’t a real distinction between a fetus and a newborn, and thinks that IF abortion is allowable, so should post birth abortion be allowed. As he doesn’t think post-birth abortion should be permitted, he has come to the conclusion that pre-birth abortion should be prohibited also.

    There are two ways you can look at this: what do you think the difference between a fetus and a born baby is, such that only pre-birth abortion should be permitted? And if you don’t think it should be permitted, don’t you agree with them that there isn’t a difference between a fetus and a baby?

  2. Bob
    29 February 2012 at 2:55 pm

    It certainly highlights the dangerous philosophy of the pro-choice movement

  3. Jeremy
    29 February 2012 at 4:14 pm

    Poor boy, my heart bleeds for him. Maybe he could get a real job, make a worthwhile contribution to society rather than just getting rich by exploiting women and pandering to male lust.Just a thought.

  4. Bob
    29 February 2012 at 7:05 pm

    Are you on the right page Jeremy? I think you’re referring to our earlier post on Steve Crow??

  5. bob
    29 February 2012 at 8:09 pm

    @ Graeme E – yeh, my first thought was these researchers must be putting up a null hypothesis, to prove that unborn babies are the same as post-birth. But the more I read, the more serious they seem…

    Of course, the only difference between a baby pre- and post-birth is that pre-birth they are physically attached to the mother, so she can’t walk away from her baby. Which is why pro-choicers say the mother should be allowed to abort – to prevent her from being ‘forced’ to have the baby remain attached until birth (reason for apostraphes around ‘forced’ is, some would say the mother is not forced, but made her choice at point of intercourse, and shouldn’t get to revise that choice – to the detriment of her baby – once she is is pregnant).

    But all this raises an interesting question – what if mothers wanting to abort their baby were only allowed a C-section? (after the point of the delivered baby’s viability) Should we then be able to criminalise abortion from viable delivery date onwards? As the mother has choice to abandon her baby by C-section, rather than by abortion? And C-section allows the baby to live…

    Somehow I suspect the debate would degenerate to ‘the mother should be free to abort to avoid C-section scars’…. ;(

  6. bob
    29 February 2012 at 8:14 pm

    Sorry – forgot to ask – why did the researchers in Oz not ask themselves the bleeding obvious? Which is – why kill an unwanted baby after it’s born, when you can adopt the child out?

    The answer seems to be that they are really targeting the unwanted born babies who cost the state in ongoing medical treatment and living support costs. Lovely.

  7. Dave Palmer
    29 February 2012 at 8:41 pm

    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.” Oh dear. A ‘final solution’ for Down Syndrome people who are an inconvenience to the state. And of course for any others with inconvenient disabilities. I’m beyond words as to what to say about anyone who could consider such a ‘solution’ as ethical.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *