"After-Birth Abortion" The pro-choice case for infanticide.

[tooblue]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infan ticide_.html


[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.

[LA Ute]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infan ticide_.html

And there's this paragraph:


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.

[jrj84105]

Fortunately, the philosophy department at the University of Milan doesn't have a lot of sway with the US healthcare and legal system. They posed a philosophical debate that is flawed on both an ethical and rational basis. They ask whether there is a rational basis for treating fatally ill infants differently than fetuses with abnormalities inconsistent with life. I think they fail to recognize that we have already ethically, legally, and rationally defined what it means to be a non-competent living person with a terminal illness, and that a 90 year old cognitively non-functional person with a terminal disease is treated under the law and by ethical principles in the same manner as a fatally ill infant. The authors have created a firestorm of indignation around an intentionally provocative piece while neglecting the actual moral and ethical dilemmas that exist around end of life care at all ages.

[tooblue]

Fortunately, the philosophy department at the University of Milan doesn't have a lot of sway with the US healthcare and legal system. They posed a philosophical debate that is flawed on both an ethical and rational basis. They ask whether there is a rational basis for treating fatally ill infants differently than fetuses with abnormalities inconsistent with life. I think they fail to recognize that we have already ethically, legally, and rationally defined what it means to be a non-competent living person with a terminal illness, and that a 90 year old cognitively non-functional person with a terminal disease is treated under the law and by ethical principles in the same manner as a fatally ill infant. The authors have created a firestorm of indignation around an intentionally provocative piece while neglecting the actual moral and ethical dilemmas that exist around end of life care at all ages.

This isn't a debate. Setting the provocative nature aside, this is a purely ethical and rational argument. Moral behaviour and ethical behaviour are not necessarily the same thing. The ethics of the current laws governing abortion demand these questions be asked.

[jrj84105]

This isn't a debate. Setting the provocative nature aside, this is a purely ethical and rational argument. Moral behaviour and ethical behaviour are not necessarily the same thing. The ethics of the current laws governing abortion demand these questions be asked.

It's not a well thought out rational argument because the entire premise is based on a gross linguistic error (at least in English). Contrary to what many people think, abortion is death before birth whether unintended (spontaneous abortion) or willful (elective abortion). What the authors attempt to do in their argument is to conflate the term abortion with willful death. By shuttling between the actual meaning of abortion and their oxymoronic usage (after-birth abortion = jumbo shrimp), they are defying logic. There is a sound logical basis for arguing that elective abortion is murder, but there is no logical basis for asking if any type of death after birth is an abortion unless the question really focuses on breaking down key semantic differences between abortion/death, murder/homicide/fetacide/infanticide. I think the authors really fail to address the inherent semantic underpinnings of the issue.

[tooblue]

It's not a well thought out rational argument because the entire premise is based on a gross linguistic error (at least in English). Contrary to what many people think, abortion is death before birth whether unintended (spontaneous abortion) or willful (elective abortion). What the authors attempt to do in their argument is to conflate the term abortion with willful death. By shuttling between the actual meaning of abortion and their oxymoronic usage (after-birth abortion = jumbo shrimp), they are defying logic. There is a sound logical basis for arguing that elective abortion is murder, but there is no logical basis for asking if any type of death after birth is an abortion unless the question really focuses on breaking down key semantic differences between abortion/death, murder/homicide/fetacide/infanticide. I think the authors really fail to address the inherent semantic underpinnings of the issue.

Whether you or I feel it is a well thought out argument (I have not rendered judgment) is irrelevant. Based upon the current laws governing abortion in most western democratic societies it is a sound rational argument. It raises questions, not about semantics but rather about natural applicable progression of such laws and how arguments could be made to suggest that infanticide could be considered after-birth abortion.

[jrj84105]

It raises questions, not about semantics but rather about natural applicable progression of such laws and how arguments could be made to suggest that infanticide could be considered after-birth abortion.
You don't get it. Is dying of cholera or pertussis an after birth abortion? Is SIDS after birth abortion? Is an infant involved in a fatal car accident an after birth abortion? Because calling infanticide an after birth abortion means all of these other things are after birth abortions as well.

There are opportunities for a real discussion (and plenty of others have had these discussions with less notice in the lay press), but these authors totally miss the opportunity. We don't have much of an issue differentiating withdrawl of extraordinary lifesaving measures (ventilation, ECMO, etc) from negligent homicide (not feeding a well baby). If someone actually wants to have a discussion of the similarity of elective abortion versus fetacide, this is where the intellectual interest lies. Can a person make an argument that placental support of a fetus is an extraordinary lifesaving measure or is it more akin to feeding your baby? Are there instances where both either might be true? Would the ethics of elective abortion be different if the mechanism were different (i.e. placental disruption in stead of fetal destruction)? Instead, they've puplished an incredibly intellectually lazy piece to garner some buzz.

PS: I'm guessing that you probably also assume that I think that these things are completely ethically different and that elective abortion of healthy fetuses is ethically just. I actually do not think this at all. My issue is not with calling into question the ethics of elective abortion. My issue is with lazy discussion and reporting of medicine, and especially the ethics of medicine, in the lay press.

Additionally, the importance of language in these matters is far from trivial. If you believe that life begins at birth, then the most common cause of death for mankind is spontaneous abortion/miscarriage. The latter, miscarriage, directly implies maternal failure to carry the baby. The former, through the misuse of the word abortion, implies wanton destruction of fetus. When you examine the limited ability with which our culture linguistically deals with the most common cause of death, then you start to recognize the social context of this debate, and the inherent culture of blame/shame placed upon women. If the language isn't part of the philosophical discussion of a paper which is at its core a reconfiguration of linguistic devises, then that paper is an abject failure.

[tooblue]

You don't get it. Is dying of cholera or pertussis an after birth abortion? Is SIDS after birth abortion? Is an infant involved in a fatal car accident an after birth abortion? Because calling infanticide an after birth abortion means all of these other things are after birth abortions as well.

There are opportunities for a real discussion (and plenty of others have had these discussions with less notice in the lay press), but these authors totally miss the opportunity. We don't have much of an issue differentiating withdrawl of extraordinary lifesaving measures (ventilation, ECMO, etc) from negligent homicide (not feeding a well baby). If someone actually wants to have a discussion of the similarity of elective abortion versus fetacide, this is where the intellectual interest lies. Can a person make an argument that placental support of a fetus is an extraordinary lifesaving measure or is it more akin to feeding your baby? Are there instances where both either might be true? Would the ethics of elective abortion be different if the mechanism were different (i.e. placental disruption in stead of fetal destruction)? Instead, they've puplished an incredibly intellectually lazy piece to garner some buzz.

PS: I'm guessing that you probably also assume that I think that these things are completely ethically different and that elective abortion of healthy fetuses is ethically just. I actually do not think this at all. My issue is not with calling into question the ethics of elective abortion. My issue is with lazy discussion and reporting of medicine, and especially the ethics of medicine, in the lay press.

The argument being made is referencing acts of abortion, not acts of nature or "God." The sweeping declaration of your first paragraph is a red herring. The only opportunity that exists here is to examine the natural applicable progression of our current laws on abortion. I have made no assumptions about you and your beliefs. To me, this is not a discussion about lifesaving measures of medical professionals, or about a so called lazy press which I find unduly indignant. The article is referencing on-going discussions in a variety of circles, namely philosophy, about societal ethics particularly as they relate to abortion. What is the difference between terminating a viable fetus in the womb and terminating a new born infant based upon or applying the same logic and rational which renders the first option ethically lawful? Not a lot. In my estimation it will not be long before an enterprising lawyer will make just such an argument in a court of law. That is the underlying issue.

[jrj84105]

Please learn the definition of the word abortion and the difference between elective and spontaneous abortion, and the absolute numbers of each. It is synonymous with miscarriage. You cannot have an intelligent discussion about abortion until you know the definition of the word.

[tooblue]

Please learn the definition of the word abortion and the difference between elective and spontaneous abortion, and the absolute numbers of each. It is synonymous with miscarriage. You cannot have an intelligent discussion about abortion until you know the definition of the word.

Your condescension is duly noted. I understand the difference and definitions of the words, terms and ideas that you are introducing to the discussion. The article however is referencing "justified abortion" and the criteria that has lead the the writing of laws governing what is considered medically ethical behaviour in most western democratic societies, as it relates to the termination of a human fetus.

[UTEopia]

Abortion as we typically define it already occurs post-birth. My wife is a nurse in a neo-natal ICU at a regional hospital that receives newborns from the State in which we live and neighboring states as well. There are probably anywhere from 200-250 infants a year on her floor that would have qualified for 3rd trimester abortion based on physical and genetic issues. The parents of these infants chose birth over abortion with the hope that their child had either been mis-diagnosed or would be the one in many that would thrive given the physical and genetic problems. When the children are born, absent severe birth defects, the child looks and acts like most other newborns. It poops and drools. Cute for an infant but not for a 3 year old or a 14 year old or a 25 year old. Those are the best outcomes for the majority of those of the 200-250 who make it. There are those within that group who have been over-diagnosed and who go on to live a fairly normal life, but of the group I describe, those are the significant minority. Those with severe physical problems (most with severe genetic issues have severe physical issues as well) proceed through surgery after surgery after surgery. Those that do not die due to complications of surgery suffer tremendously and the parents watching them suffer suffer as well. As days turn into weeks and weeks into months many parents decide that rather than promoting life all that medical science can offer is prolonging death and they choose to terminate life by withdrawing life support. Some fight on hoping for miracles but as months approach a year it is clear that their infant will likely require too much care to ever leave a hospital setting. Ultimately these poor souls are shipped off to one of a couple baby rest homes where they will live out their lives.

These are tough issues for the medical community. There are not bright lines only shades of grey. My wife grows close to the infants and the parents. The parents suffer emotionally, physically and economically. Many of these parents do not have insurance and are on State assistance. Those with insurance find very quickly that the costs are tremendous and the insurance not as good as they had hoped.

I go back and forth on abortion and choice. I was adopted at birth and my birth mother could have chosen to have me aborted. On the other hand, I know people who have struggled with the decision and have ultimately chosen to terminate a pregnancy. It was not an easy decision and it was not taken lightly. I have seen the toll the choice of birth can have and it too is not painless.

[jrj84105]

Your condescension is duly noted. I understand the difference and definitions of the words, terms and ideas that you are introducing to the discussion. The article however is referencing "justified abortion" and the criteria that has lead the the writing of laws governing what is considered medically ethical behaviour in most western democratic societies, as it relates to the termination of a human fetus.
I am introducing CORRECT terminology because it is absent from the discussion you reference. And I am laying on as much condescension as possible because you still fail to grasp the difference between the correct medical definition of abortion, i.e. "the premature termination of pregnancy by spontaneous or induced expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus" with the misappropriated lay definition meaning the "elective procedure by which abortion is induced".

The act of nature/God variety is the much more common type as between 20-50% of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, typically due to genomic imbalances which are incompatible with life. Many are experienced as exceptionally heavy pregnancies but many others are experienced as miscarriages, often with an unbelievable degree of guilt considering the commonality and inevitability of these spontaneous abortions.

[jrj84105]

These are tough issues for the medical community. There are not bright lines only shades of grey. My wife grows close to the infants and the parents. The parents suffer emotionally, physically and economically. Many of these parents do not have insurance and are on State assistance. Those with insurance find very quickly that the costs are tremendous and the insurance not as good as they had hoped.

This is where there really is an ethical and philosophical debate which needs to be had and which would benefit from avoidance of misappropriation of heavily charged terminology. Instead of that, we get the garbage in the original link.

[tooblue]

I am introducing CORRECT terminology because it is absent from the discussion you reference. And I am laying on as much condescension as possible because you still fail to grasp the difference between the correct medical definition of abortion, i.e. "the premature termination of pregnancy by spontaneous or induced expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus" with the misappropriated lay definition meaning the "elective procedure by which abortion is induced".

The act of nature/God variety is the much more common type as between 20-50% of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, typically due to genomic imbalances which are incompatible with life. Many are experienced as exceptionally heavy pregnancies but many others are experienced as miscarriages, often with an unbelievable degree of guilt considering the commonality and inevitability of these spontaneous abortions.

I have not failed to grasp anything. Your behaviour is asinine. No one, most of all me suggests that your terminology is incorrect. Seriously? Furthermore, it is not absent from the discussion raised in the article due to ignorance or stupidity. The article simply is not referencing what you are speaking about because it is specifically addressing issues surrounding "justified abortion" and nothing else. Those other issues you are raising have purposely been withheld from the original philosophical discussion because they obfuscate the intent of the inquiry, precisely because the discussion isn't a medical one.

No one is suggesting that "expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus" is not tragic or that there a not a multiplicity of scenarios or conditions whereby a fetus could be aborted. To be succinct, the philosophical argument being addressed is dealing with the notion of justification by an agent who is able to choose an "elective procedure by which abortion is induced" PERIOD.

[tooblue]

This is where there really is an ethical and philosophical debate which needs to be had and which would benefit from avoidance of misappropriation of heavily charged terminology. Instead of that, we get the garbage in the original link.

That is a separate philosophical debate which should be had. Unfortunately, your overestimated sense of self has led you to believe you are bringing a gun to a knife fight. The only problem is you aren’t even in the same neighborhood.

[DanielLaRusso]

This far into an argument over infanticide and no Peter Singer has been dropped?...

[LA Ute]

This seems like a lot of energy to spend on a deliberately provocative and very "out there" piece of writing.