After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

[terranova]

jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full

Interesting article on "post birth abortions" and why are late term abortions allowed and not infanticide. The author has recieved "hundreds" of death threats.

[sriracha]

Agree or disagree, this is a compelling debate and worthy of discussion within the scope of the euthanasia topic. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions and answers taking different factors into consideration. Thank you for posting this!

[SpeakNow]

jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full

Interesting article on "post birth abortions" and why are late term abortions allowed and not infanticide. The author has recieved "hundreds" of death threats.

I have 2 issues with this. First, having a child with a severe disability is not a bad thing. I really hate it when people assume a disability means that the child and the family will have a horrible quality of life. I teach Special Ed in an urban public school for children with multiple disabilities (intellectual and physical) and i can tell you that these children and families are not "cursed." Most of them are very happy. I also have an uncle with severe intellectual disabilities, and I wouldn't trade him for the world. Granted, disabilities pose more of a challenge to parents, but that doesn't mean we should be aborting and/or killing all fetuses/babies with disabilities. (Sorry for the rant). Second, I feel that killing infants leads to a slippery slope. In the womb, the fetus still depends 100% on its mother to be sustained. Outside of the uterus, it becomes its own separate being. If we start saying that killing newborns is okay we get start getting into euthanasia issues and other issues such as at what age can you no longer "abort" an already born baby.

[chiccy]

I find it rather distressing to read philosophical papers on late-term abortion, euthanasia, etc. These days, the trend among academic philosophers is utilitarianism, which in practice leads many to defend inflicting death in gray-area cases. The papers--like this one--are often very convincing from a logical perspective. Nonetheless, they can be chilling to basic human sensibilities. In trying to find a logical flaw, I sometimes observe that these arguments are reductionistic, proceeding from assumptions that are popular in the modern academy but that are nonetheless myopic. In this paper, for example, after-birth abortion is justified in that

[...]failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. [...] If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.

The idea that one must have "aims" in order to be a "person" (i.e., the subject of a moral right to life) is a popular definition that supposedly proceeds from Kant, but the applications in which it is used could not be more contrary to basic Kantian principles such as the Categorial Imperative. (I don't really understand how they can get away with this, although admittedly I don't know enough about philosophy to be a good judge.) Anyway, I think the "person" definition used in this article is unduly reductive, which may explain why the upshot is so chilling.

A very good article about this paper is here.

[NurseNell]

I have 2 issues with this. First, having a child with a severe disability is not a bad thing. I really hate it when people assume a disability means that the child and the family will have a horrible quality of life. I teach Special Ed in an urban public school for children with multiple disabilities (intellectual and physical) and i can tell you that these children and families are not "cursed." Most of them are very happy. I also have an uncle with severe intellectual disabilities, and I wouldn't trade him for the world. Granted, disabilities pose more of a challenge to parents, but that doesn't mean we should be aborting and/or killing all fetuses/babies with disabilities. (Sorry for the rant).

This.

[emmiedahl]

My issue with this is that my belief in choice is based on a belief in medical autonomy and privacy. Once the baby leaves your body, it is no longer your personal health issue.

[NurseNell]

"An "actual person" in their terms is someone who can have plans and aims." Gosh, I can think of plenty of adults who don't have plans or aims. Should we start euthanizing them? :roll:

[dramallama]

My issue with this is that my belief in choice is based on a belief in medical autonomy and privacy. Once the baby leaves your body, it is no longer your personal health issue.

[nomi]

Wow, this is such a catch 22. On one hand, I feel that once a baby is born and has breathed its first independent breath it is a human with the rights afforded to any other person (at least in America). However, I could see having a baby with an undiagnosed trisomy disorder or some other surprise defects that are severe and declining life sustaining medical aid such as heart surgery, feeding tube, etc...if the prognosis was extremely grim. Really though, it isn't euthanasia. In that case, the baby would suffer for breath or starve until death.

Since a baby has rights as a human individual, isn't it up to us, as parents, to make sure that every single thing is done to protect that life and promote it?

[Dinaberries]

I have 2 issues with this. First, having a child with a severe disability is not a bad thing. I really hate it when people assume a disability means that the child and the family will have a horrible quality of life. I teach Special Ed in an urban public school for children with multiple disabilities (intellectual and physical) and i can tell you that these children and families are not "cursed." Most of them are very happy. I also have an uncle with severe intellectual disabilities, and I wouldn't trade him for the world. Granted, disabilities pose more of a challenge to parents, but that doesn't mean we should be aborting and/or killing all fetuses/babies with disabilities. (Sorry for the rant). Second, I feel that killing infants leads to a slippery slope. In the womb, the fetus still depends 100% on its mother to be sustained. Outside of the uterus, it becomes its own separate being. If we start saying that killing newborns is okay we get start getting into euthanasia issues and other issues such as at what age can you no longer "abort" an already born baby.

I completely agree with this.

Edit: I'd also like to add that I wish that the US government would provide much more support to the disabled. I think that would take a huge burden (I don't think disabled children are a burden, but obviously a lot of work goes into their care) off of families with disabled children, and would help these families to better function. For example, my husband's cousin has a disease that leaves him wheelchair bound, but since he lives in Canada, he has so many benefits that the government provides, that helps him to have the best quality of life he possibly can. If this was the norm in more places, it wouldn't be seen as such a great tragedy to have a disabled child.

[chiccy]

My issue with this is that my belief in choice is based on a belief in medical autonomy and privacy. Once the baby leaves your body, it is no longer your personal health issue.

This is so smart. Perfectly said. +1.

[Austin]

My issue with this is that my belief in choice is based on a belief in medical autonomy and privacy. Once the baby leaves your body, it is no longer your personal health issue.

I agree. The baby then needs to be evaluated as the patient, not as an extension of the mother, and any medical decisions should be based on what is best for the patient.

Sometimes palliative care is what is best, and I am not opposed to that for a baby that is suffering. But that's as far as I can go. If a person has to have "aims and plans" to be a person, then almost everybody I know would qualify by that standard at some point or another in their lives.

[ellerigby]

My issue with this is that my belief in choice is based on a belief in medical autonomy and privacy. Once the baby leaves your body, it is no longer your personal health issue.

QFT. You expressed what I also strongly believe much better than I could.

[Arielkay]

Great. Naturally anti-choicers will jump on this, lumping them in with pro-choice people. Example from one article:

The paper has also been used to advance the message of some anti-abortion activists. Pro-life Victoria president Denise Cameron said she was disgusted by the paper, but said it came as no surprise. ''We always said in the beginning, little by little, if you allow abortion at any time, you then couldn't argue against it at any other point of time.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/life ... z1nu4kreU4

[chiccy]

Great. Naturally anti-choicers will jump on this, lumping them in with pro-choice people. Example from one article:

The paper has also been used to advance the message of some anti-abortion activists. Pro-life Victoria president Denise Cameron said she was disgusted by the paper, but said it came as no surprise. ''We always said in the beginning, little by little, if you allow abortion at any time, you then couldn't argue against it at any other point of time.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/life ... z1nu4kreU4

This is really interesting. It's nothing short of an instance of the extreme left sharing a philosophical position with the extreme right. "One's the same as the other"--killing a fetus is the same as killing a baby--is what they both are essentially saying.

I find this meeting of the two extremes incredibly fascinating and illuminating.

Pro-choice, anti-infanticide is looking more and more obvious as the only reasonable and sane position.

[valsa]

I'm tentatively for euthanasia in some cases of severely, severely disabled babies.

There was an interesting story one of my nursing instructors talked with the class about. Years and years ago, when she worked in Labor & Delivery, there was a little boy who was born severely disabled. He was basically missing a brain (the only thing he had was enough of a brainstem to keep him breathing on his own) His parents declined life support measures (he would have been a vegetable all his life), so the nurses basically stuck him in a back room to die for lack of sustenance. I think she said it took him something like three days to die (and he did cry the entire time) I can't help but think it would have been more humane to outright kill him than let him die slowly. Of course, these questions are related far more closely to euthanasia than abortion.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

My issue with this is that my belief in choice is based on a belief in medical autonomy and privacy. Once the baby leaves your body, it is no longer your personal health issue.

Here too.

I absolutely think that a debate on euthanasia as its own topic can be valuable (not restricted to babies either) but the idea that infanticide is just a slightly delayed abortion seems to miss a VERY bright line, IMHO, namely that once the baby is born, it can be sustained (or not) completely independent of the mother. The mother can simply abandon the child at that point.

As for the baby born with only part of a brainstem that was let to die slowly - at least if he only had part of a brainstem, there's no way he was suffering. Horrible story though :(

I did read another extremely long months long thread (possibly found through a post on the old FJ, the thread itself was archived on the Something Awful forums) about a woman who had an anencephalic baby and took the baby home, refusing DNRs, and managed to keep the child alive for 3 months, 3 horrible months, until the inevitable death. There too, the only saving comfort was that there was no way the baby could have suffered - but the mother, I just cannot imagine. You'd think euthanasia would have been kinder on everyone, but of course there's the slippery slope issues too.

Anyway - I do think euthanasia is worth discussing, but I don't think infanticide can be excused as "the same as abortion" by any means.

[chiccy]

I'm tentatively for euthanasia in some cases of severely, severely disabled babies.

There was an interesting story one of my nursing instructors talked with the class about. Years and years ago, when she worked in Labor & Delivery, there was a little boy who was born severely disabled. He was basically missing a brain (the only thing he had was enough of a brainstem to keep him breathing on his own) His parents declined life support measures (he would have been a vegetable all his life), so the nurses basically stuck him in a back room to die for lack of sustenance. I think she said it took him something like three days to die (and he did cry the entire time) I can't help but think it would have been more humane to outright kill him than let him die slowly. Of course, these questions are related far more closely to euthanasia than abortion.

I completely agree that euthanasia would have been a good idea in that baby's case. In fact, there are many cases when I think euthanasia is not only defensible, but a distinctly good and humane thing.

One thing that bothered me about this paper is that it intentionally makes a distinction between after-birth abortion and euthanasia, arguing that after-birth abortion is acceptable even if it is not in the best interests of the child. According to the article, after-birth abortion is OK so long as it is in the best interests of the family. Even if the baby is perfectly healthy and not suffering, after-birth abortion is supposedly justifiable if the newborn is seen as "a burden to its family." That felt very wrong to me.

[valsa]

That felt very wrong to me.

That's probably because it is wrong.

A fetus is one thing but once a baby is born, it should be treated like any other family member. If my mooch of an older brother is a burden to me, I don't get to kill him for it. Neither should I be able to kill a baby just for being a burden.

Granted, I barely skimmed the link but I just don't see how infanticide has anything to do with abortion.

[Rosa]

Great. Naturally anti-choicers will jump on this, lumping them in with pro-choice people. Example from one article:

The paper has also been used to advance the message of some anti-abortion activists. Pro-life Victoria president Denise Cameron said she was disgusted by the paper, but said it came as no surprise. ''We always said in the beginning, little by little, if you allow abortion at any time, you then couldn't argue against it at any other point of time.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/life ... z1nu4kreU4

The thing about that slippery slope argument is that in real actual reality, it has gone the other way: historically we've moved from open infanticide, to hidden infanticide (such as the orphanages and baby farms of the 18th and 19th century in Europe), to cultural norms moving "acceptable" abortions earlier and earlier in pregnancy.

[chiccy]

That's probably because it is wrong.

A fetus is one thing but once a baby is born, it should be treated like any other family member. If my mooch of an older brother is a burden to me, I don't get to kill him for it. Neither should I be able to kill a baby just for being a burden.

Granted, I barely skimmed the link but I just don't see how infanticide has anything to do with abortion.

Valsa, it's worth reading because they actually make a good case. I don't know how I could argue with it from a purely philosophical-logical perspective beyond my problem with the "person" definition. Most of their argument is quite compelling.

I would be interested to hear from any FJers who are versed in philosophical argumentation. I wish I could tear the paper apart myself, but I can't. It's one thing to present a convincing argument on the other side, as lots of people have done here. But it's another, more difficult thing to find specific problems with the paper's argument. Does anyone see any, besides the "person=aims" thing?

[emmiedahl]

Chiccy, the main reason for abortion being legal is a person's right to make their own health care decisions. Like I said before, once the baby is out, it is no longer your health care decision. The baby is no longer a parasite on your body, but an independent human being.

When you become a real human is immaterial to the abortion issue. The issue is that the baby is being housed at great personal expense to the mother and she is not obligated to extend that care to another person. Like donating a kidney, no one can make you donate your body. There is no parasitism or organ donation involved in the needs of a newborn.

[2xx1xy1JD]

QFT. You expressed what I also strongly believe much better than I could.

Thank you.

We don't permit abortion because we think that babies are worthless. We permit it because the fetus is growing inside of a woman, and having a direct impact on her body. It's wrong for the state to compel women to gestate against their will.

The essential difference between a fetus and infant is that a fetus is essentially a parasite - perhaps a very wanted one who will soon be a little person, but biologically, it's still a parasite and is dependent upon another organism (the mother) for survival.

Didn't I just have this debate with JFC?

[valsa]

Valsa, it's worth reading because they actually make a good case. I don't know how I could argue with it from a purely philosophical-logical perspective beyond my problem with the "person" definition. Most of their argument is quite compelling.

I would be interested to hear from any FJers who are versed in philosophical argumentation. I wish I could tear the paper apart myself, but I can't. It's one thing to present a convincing argument on the other side, as lots of people have done here. But it's another, more difficult thing to find specific problems with the paper's argument. Does anyone see any, besides the "person=aims" thing?

Didn't read it but the reason that abortion is morally okay in my book isn't because the fetus deserves no moral rights as a person; it’s because the fetus' moral rights as a person are superseded by the pregnant woman's right to bodily autonomy. Once the conflict between potential life and bodily autonomy no longer exists (ie- once the baby is born), the woman has no more ability to impede the child's rights than she does anyone else's.

[chiccy]

Chiccy, the main reason for abortion being legal is a person's right to make their own health care decisions. Like I said before, once the baby is out, it is no longer your health care decision. The baby is no longer a parasite on your body, but an independent human being.

When you become a real human is immaterial to the abortion issue. The issue is that the baby is being housed at great personal expense to the mother and she is not obligated to extend that care to another person. Like donating a kidney, no one can make you donate your body. There is no parasitism or organ donation involved in the needs of a newborn.

Emmie, I completely agree. I guess what I was trying to say is that it's difficult to find problems with the internal logic of the paper's argument. The paper does make it a "personhood" question, but also explains why the authors think it should be a personhood question. It is assumed in moral philosophy that these issues (abortion, etc.) are essentially "personhood" questions, because only a "person" is the subject of moral rights* and especially the moral right to life (Michael Tooley, 1972). So the paper also proceeds on those intradisciplinary assumptions.

While I agree with you when you say "it shouldn't be a question of personhood, but rather a question of X," I see this as a challenge to the paper's approach, and not evidence of a problem in its argument. I would really like it if someone could find a problem in the argument besides the one I mentioned.

*except for the right not to suffer/have pain inflicted.