After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? [Article from Journal of Medical Ethics]


#1

Was made aware of this article published back in 2012 in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

Abstract
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.
Take a few minutes and read the whole thing.

Your thoughts?

(Oh, btw, my thoughts: may God have mercy on us)


#2

My thoughts exactly. How can God still love us??? May He have mercy on us and forgive us our arrogance…


#3

Even so come Lord Jesus.


#4

This is just one horrifying example of what will come of making “personhood” arbitrary.


#5

In what way is this a surprise?

Once abortion on demand became acceptable up to birth, this was inevitable.

Purgatory, here we come.

ICXC NIKA.


#6

It is a chilling article, even more so in that it allows not only for “after-birth abortion” of a newborn who suffers from an undetected congenital illness while in the womb and is enduring much physical pain, but also for a perfectly healthy newborn (still considered to be only a potential person albeit human) who may nonetheless be regarded by its parents and, by extension, society as an overwhelming psychological burden. While the grief of the mother due to abortion and after-birth abortion (which the author differentiates from both infanticide and euthanasia) is not denied, it is also stated that the grief due to NOT aborting even a healthy infant after birth but instead putting the infant up for adoption may be just as powerful. Personally, I question this, and think the pure logic of the argument falters on this point. But logic and reason alone without some sense of morality can be cold and dangerous as I believe the author of this article inadvertently demonstrates.


#7

Purgatory? We wish!!!


#8

This is the same sort of proposal that has been put forth by Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University (a professor of Ethics!) for several years now.

He has proposed that newborns not be granted the legal protection of ‘personhood’ for six months after birth. This gives the parents a chance to change their minds if for any reason the newborn is not acceptable to them. Perhaps they were considering abortion, but decided against it. Perhaps there was an unknown birth defect. It doesn’t really matter. It moves the acceptability of abortion forward to six months post-birth. (Of course, that could change, too.)

When I first heard of Singer’s theories, I thought they were too abhorrent to be taken seriously. But he is quite serious. And now these ideas are filtering down to the medical community.

Some day the age limit for “abortion” could be, say, age 12. Sounds fanciful, but if one has no legal protection before birth, soon we will have no legal protection post-birth either.


#9

Given the secular axioms this article starts from it is entirely logical to legalize after-birth abortions, see the Romans, Greeks and many other pagan places. That doesn’t make it any less appalling from a moral standpoint.

I think that perhaps this is a successful troll that was too successful.


#10

This is what passes for medical ethics nowadays?

Sometimes my profession really, really makes me violently sick.

:banghead::banghead::banghead::takethat::takethat::takethat:

Lord have mercy on us all.

(ETA: In fairness to the BMJ, they did print a good response from a Catholic theologian:
jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411/suppl/DC3)


#11

jme.bmj.com/content/suppl/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.DC3/Carmosy.docx
“Concern for Our Vulnerable Prenatal and Neonatal Children: A Brief Reply to Giubilini and Minerva” by Professor Charles C. Camosy of Fordham University


#12

Peter Singer has written this:

“The liberal search for a morally crucial dividing line between the newborn baby and the fetus has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with a right to life from those who lack such a right” (Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 142).
(Quoted by Trent Horn here.)

Consequently Prof. Singer has argued that infanticide, or post-birth abortion, is morally acceptable whenever abortion would have been acceptable. According to pro-abortion advocates, abortion is acceptable for any reason or no reason. It is at the sole discretion of the mother.

As a result, birth may now be no protection at all against arbitrary killing. If a new human being cannot be protected simply by reason of being a new individual of the human species at conception, there is no guarantee of a right to life at any point thereafter.


#13

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.