After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

[2xx1xy1JD]

The argument from bodily autonomy is a compelling one- but doesn't get at the whole story. If the only issue is that the fetus is dependent upon the mother's body for survival- well than just remove the fetus, don't kill it. Any abortion after the 22nd week would no longer be necessary. For that matter, technology is advancing so rapidly one could imagine a future in which fetuses can be sustained from a very very early point- let's say 8 weeks for the sake of argument. I would argue, and I'm sure most pro-choice folks would agree, that there should still be the option to terminate even if the fetus could live independently of the womb, and even if it's removal is no more invasive than an abortion. A woman should be able to have a say as to whether or not she wants the developing being to continue to, well, develop. If we agree to this, then the same argument applies after birth- if we don't because, then there must be other factors influencing our judgement. For this reason I believe personhood, or rather the potential for personhood, IS important! personally, I feel that drawing the line at the moment of birth is just as crazy as drawing the line at the moment of conception. It makes it a black and white issue- when it is anything but. I believe abortion is an ethical grey area, and I don't think that's a bad thing. The development of a person begins long before sperm meets egg and continues long after birth and the way we address terminating at any point in the process is going to depend on where the fetus lies on a continuum.

Abortions after 22 weeks are exceedingly rare. They are really only performed if there is some exceptionally serious threat to the mother, or an extreme fetal defect that wasn't detected earlier. There are some defects where a fetus may be able to grow inside the mother, but would die at or shortly after birth (eg. anacephalic babies).

[formergothardite]

It would depend on your stance on abortion in the first place, which is what Dr Minerva's question teases out. Does it actually become murder because a baby has been pushed out of a woman's vagina, or is the issue more complex?

Pretty much.

[JesusFightClub]

Pretty much that baby is a full human after it emerges from the vag, or pretty much that it's complex? The second I agree with, the first I can't see a clear argument for.

[sugaree]

Could a baby without a brain have the ability to cry or eat?

Short answer is yeah. They have a brain stem; thus they have all the lower brain functions.

Both acts would be more instinctual than deliberate decisions to do something, but I guess that's true for neurotypical newborns as well. Now, while neurotypical newborns do feel pain, I do not think that these babies would have the capacity. Still, I see no problem with providing comfort care, as would be done with an end-stage cancer or Alzheimer's patient after the decision to withhold nourishment is made. Really, many cases that bring up the question of outright euthanasia could be treated with good comfort care.

[formergothardite]

Pretty much that baby is a full human after it emerges from the vag, or pretty much that it's complex? The second I agree with, the first I can't see a clear argument for.

Pretty much as in once it is no longer depending on the woman for life, then itis murder. The woman can walk away from the baby, it does not need her to live. Before birth the fetus is a parasite depending on the woman for life. It can harm and possible kill her. After birth the baby is no longer connected to her in that way.

[sugaree]

Heh. Meant to edit; quoted instead.

[Arielkay]

It seems like, in the case of the poor baby without a brain, they could have given him say a larger dose of morphine or something - let him just go to sleep peacefully. But I guess then people would be crying murder, like they do with assisted suicides. I just don't get that. It's not their life, they're not the one in pain - let the person do what is best for them. Who are we to say what pain someone else is expected to endure? People act like doctors will then just decide independently to kill you if you're inconvenient, which is just absurd. Sort of like if you're an organ donor, doctors won't bother to save you so that they can harvest your organs.

It seems like a quick, painless death would be better than a long, drawn out "natural" death in the corner somewhere. What a very sad case. They also used to take stillborn babies away immediately rather than allowing the mothers to hold them one time and have some closure. I'd like to think we're progressing past that point, but there are some that would have us continue to go backward.

But that is creepy - the idea of killing a newborn like that. Unless we're talking something like the above baby - something done out of mercy - I can't imagine. It feels like more ammunition for pro-lifers - see, a baby and a fetus are just the same!

[Vex]

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.

I agre completely with both sets of quotes. I strongly believe euthanasia should be an option to end the suffering of people with no hope of recovering and nothing to look forward to but an excruciating death, but that it should be looked at at a case-by-case basis and that there should be an evaluation process of some sort to make sure that the people involve understand all their options, are of sound mind and so forth. The closest model I can think of is the process which pre-op transpeople have to go through to qualify for gender reassignment. It's case-by-case, the person has to have a long term evaluation to ensure they understand everything and are of sound mind because it's something that cannot be undone.

I do not think that post-birth abortion and euthanasia are the same thing at all. I am totally disgusted by the suggestion that they are, and this just adds more fuel to the fire for the anti-choicers, who will start saying all pro-choicers are totes cool with killing newborn babies if they're unwanted. The baby ceases to be an extention of the mother's body once it's born. If the child is a burden on the parents and they go through with the pregnancy, they can give the baby up for adoption - I can't believe anyone believes in this junk. I know a lot of times scientists write papers/conduct studies they don't believe in just to get published, so I sincerely hope this is the case and nobody sincerely believes this.

[Austin]

It seems like, in the case of the poor baby without a brain, they could have given him say a larger dose of morphine or something - let him just go to sleep peacefully. But I guess then people would be crying murder, like they do with assisted suicides. I just don't get that. It's not their life, they're not the one in pain - let the person do what is best for them. Who are we to say what pain someone else is expected to endure? People act like doctors will then just decide independently to kill you if you're inconvenient, which is just absurd. Sort of like if you're an organ donor, doctors won't bother to save you so that they can harvest your organs.

It seems like a quick, painless death would be better than a long, drawn out "natural" death in the corner somewhere. What a very sad case. They also used to take stillborn babies away immediately rather than allowing the mothers to hold them one time and have some closure. I'd like to think we're progressing past that point, but there are some that would have us continue to go backward.

But that is creepy - the idea of killing a newborn like that. Unless we're talking something like the above baby - something done out of mercy - I can't imagine. It feels like more ammunition for pro-lifers - see, a baby and a fetus are just the same!

Anencephaly is one of several conditions for which I would terminate. A baby with such a condition (no brain) has zero chance, even though some may "survive" for some period of time. To me, this decision would represent true compassion. There are too many wildcards once the baby is born and I would be terrified my child would suffer because of circumstances beyond my control (politics, hospital administration, anti-choice interlopers, etc.).

Other women carry those pregnancies to term and wait for nature to take its course, and I respect their choice, too.

[Kishiria]

The argument from bodily autonomy is a compelling one- but doesn't get at the whole story. If the only issue is that the fetus is dependent upon the mother's body for survival- well than just remove the fetus, don't kill it. Any abortion after the 22nd week would no longer be necessary. For that matter, technology is advancing so rapidly one could imagine a future in which fetuses can be sustained from a very very early point- let's say 8 weeks for the sake of argument. I would argue, and I'm sure most pro-choice folks would agree, that there should still be the option to terminate even if the fetus could live independently of the womb, and even if it's removal is no more invasive than an abortion. A woman should be able to have a say as to whether or not she wants the developing being to continue to, well, develop. If we agree to this, then the same argument applies after birth- if we don't because, then there must be other factors influencing our judgement. For this reason I believe personhood, or rather the potential for personhood, IS important! personally, I feel that drawing the line at the moment of birth is just as crazy as drawing the line at the moment of conception. It makes it a black and white issue- when it is anything but. I believe abortion is an ethical grey area, and I don't think that's a bad thing. The development of a person begins long before sperm meets egg and continues long after birth and the way we address terminating at any point in the process is going to depend on where the fetus lies on a continuum.

The Catholic Church has already moved the goalposts on this. Uterine replicators like in Lois McMaster Bujold are unacceptable because every child has the "right" to be carried and born naturally. This is part of their argument against cloning and IVF.

[2xx1xy1JD]

At the risk of invoking Godwin's rule...I also don't see how it could be anything other than problematic to start redefining personhood, or develop criteria for being considered a person with basic human rights other than simply being a human being living independently of the body of anyone else. (I'm prepared to deny full personhood to a parasitic twin)

It's pretty much the basis of the entire notion of universal human rights. Human beings are considered to have an innate value, apart from their productive ability or worth to others.

Once you deviate from that, you can justify all sorts of atrocities. During the Rwandan genocide, Tutsis were called "cockroaches". The Nazis had a whole pseudo-scientific classification system for "sub-human" races. There are places today where being born female means being killed. People with disabilities - including disabilities that don't necessarily prevent someone from living a reasonable life - have historically been killed as babies, institutionalized and/or sterilized without regard for their rights.

[Arielkay]

Anencephaly is one of several conditions for which I would terminate. A baby with such a condition (no brain) has zero chance, even though some may "survive" for some period of time. To me, this decision would represent true compassion. There are too many wildcards once the baby is born and I would be terrified my child would suffer because of circumstances beyond my control (politics, hospital administration, anti-choice interlopers, etc.).

Other women carry those pregnancies to term and wait for nature to take its course, and I respect their choice, too.

Of course. I can't imagine the pain of such a situation. A woman and her family should be able to make such a decision in private. Some people have to stick their noses in everyone else's business.

[Rosa]

The argument from bodily autonomy is a compelling one- but doesn't get at the whole story. If the only issue is that the fetus is dependent upon the mother's body for survival- well than just remove the fetus, don't kill it. Any abortion after the 22nd week would no longer be necessary. For that matter, technology is advancing so rapidly one could imagine a future in which fetuses can be sustained from a very very early point- let's say 8 weeks for the sake of argument. I would argue, and I'm sure most pro-choice folks would agree, that there should still be the option to terminate even if the fetus could live independently of the womb, and even if it's removal is no more invasive than an abortion. A woman should be able to have a say as to whether or not she wants the developing being to continue to, well, develop. If we agree to this, then the same argument applies after birth- if we don't because, then there must be other factors influencing our judgement. For this reason I believe personhood, or rather the potential for personhood, IS important! personally, I feel that drawing the line at the moment of birth is just as crazy as drawing the line at the moment of conception. It makes it a black and white issue- when it is anything but. I believe abortion is an ethical grey area, and I don't think that's a bad thing. The development of a person begins long before sperm meets egg and continues long after birth and the way we address terminating at any point in the process is going to depend on where the fetus lies on a continuum.

The person in need of a blood or bone marrow transfusion can't force another person to risk surgery to help them; neither can the fetus. Even if it *could* live outside the mother (and WHOO BOY you just wait til we're forcing hospitals & the government to provide that support, instead of women - the conversation will change COMPLETELY when someone with power is feeling the pinch) the autonomy of the woman prevents others from forcing her to have surgery to remove the fetus and turn it into an infant.

I mean, I had a c-section for my high-risk pregnancy, and required 9 pints of blood and weeks to recover (not to mention about a year to get all my abdominal muscles back in line, and some permanent nerve damage). Another person's right to life doesn't require me to do that for them.

[quiningseven]

Abortions after 22 weeks are exceedingly rare. They are really only performed if there is some exceptionally serious threat to the mother, or an extreme fetal defect that wasn't detected earlier. There are some defects where a fetus may be able to grow inside the mother, but would die at or shortly after birth (eg. anacephalic babies).

Yeah, not the point.

[emmiedahl]

Yeah, not the point.

Actually, it is the point. It is highly significant to this argument that almost all late term abortions are performed because of health concerns.

That, and the fact that people are allowed to decide how a parasite is removed, and free to do it in the way that is most comfortable to them. Why is no one screaming "Save the Cancer!" "Save the Schistosomes!" When a living thing can only exist by using your body, you have more rights than when dealing with an independent creature.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Actually, it is the point. It is highly significant to this argument that almost all late term abortions are performed because of health concerns.

That, and the fact that people are allowed to decide how a parasite is removed, and free to do it in the way that is most comfortable to them. Why is no one screaming "Save the Cancer!" "Save the Schistosomes!" When a living thing can only exist by using your body, you have more rights than when dealing with an independent creature.

Read this:

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/ ... =39&page=1

[quiningseven]

Actually, it is the point. It is highly significant to this argument that almost all late term abortions are performed because of health concerns.

That, and the fact that people are allowed to decide how a parasite is removed, and free to do it in the way that is most comfortable to them. Why is no one screaming "Save the Cancer!" "Save the Schistosomes!" When a living thing can only exist by using your body, you have more rights than when dealing with an independent creature.

The point is that it CAN exist outside the body- what you are saying is not that it's dependence is important, just the location. And, what logically follows is that a full term, perfectly healthy infant is okay to terminate and then the moment it exits the womb it is no longer okay. Seems silly to me.

[JesusFightClub]

This is partly my point, quining. It can't be "is life sustainable outside the mother's body" as that is a whole other can of worms. Can we then say it is wrong to abort if surgery could remove and incubate the child, and what justification would we have for saying that?

2xx, we've (collectively, as a species) got a further difficulty with the concept of "personhood". The definition of "person" doesn't mean "someone who it is wrong to kill". Even if we accept that a newborn baby is a person, would it automatically be wrong to kill it?

[2xx1xy1JD]

This is partly my point, quining. It can't be "is life sustainable outside the mother's body" as that is a whole other can of worms. Can we then say it is wrong to abort if surgery could remove and incubate the child, and what justification would we have for saying that?

2xx, we've (collectively, as a species) got a further difficulty with the concept of "personhood". The definition of "person" doesn't mean "someone who it is wrong to kill". Even if we accept that a newborn baby is a person, would it automatically be wrong to kill it?

Yes.

The only possible exception I can think of would be a horrible scenario where the baby was still threatening the life of the mother. I've read of situations where newborns were secretly killed and buried in concentration camps, because if they were discovered by the guards, both the baby and mother would have been immediately killed. That doesn't make the killing of a baby ok, but I would consider the Nazis to be morally culpable for the death.

[formergothardite]

This thread reminds me of the book "Unwind".

[Austin]

The point is that it CAN exist outside the body- what you are saying is not that it's dependence is important, just the location. And, what logically follows is that a full term, perfectly healthy infant is okay to terminate and then the moment it exits the womb it is no longer okay. Seems silly to me.

Well, everyone draws the line somewhere. Some draw it at conception (or even erection, on the extreme end), some set it during first trimester only, some later in pregnancy, some anytime before viability, some any time before birth. And some fringers obviously set it past that point, the other extreme end. So I'm not sure what makes viability/independence-from-host any more "silly" than any other point.

[JesusFightClub]

So would I - the mothers were coerced into the killing, so if someone forces one person to kill another, the real killer is the person using force.

Help me out here a bit, though, and I am honestly confused, not trying to be a smartarse. I think in general circumstances, of course, one would avoid killing anyone (having been through a murder trial, that is logically AND practically apparent). We agree on this. But, sometimes, people need to be killed. We may or may not agree on this, but if we do we would both hope it was uncommon, I think.

What I am wondering is do you believe babies are pretty much automatically exempt from this by virtue of babyhood? If so, why?

[quiningseven]

Well, everyone draws the line somewhere. Some draw it at conception (or even erection, on the extreme end), some set it during first trimester only, some later in pregnancy, some anytime before viability, some any time before birth. And some fringers obviously set it past that point, the other extreme end. So I'm not sure what makes viability/independence-from-host any more "silly" than any other point.

I find all these binary forced-choice scenarios silly because they take something that is a process and treat it as though it is an instantaneous change. My point is there is no line, it's a continuum, a spectrum of grey. I was not making the point that there should be a line at viability, I don't think there should be a line at all. That is what I find appealing about considering the potential for personhood, it fits best, I think, with moral sensibility. It says that in some extreme cases infant euthanasia is morally okay, and that late term abortion of a healthy fetus is not- because the potential for personhood in the latter case is much higher, even though the locations are different.

[2xx1xy1JD]

What exactly do you mean by "people need to be killed"? It sounds pretty chilling.

Are you talking about self-defense?

Are you describing conditions of war? War has its own hellish dynamic, but I think we can draw a distinction between deliberately killing innocent civilians vs. civilians being killed in a conflict where the aim was not to target them but to stop an enemy attack. There are obviously some very blurry lines, and we know that children are particularly vulnerable to war, so I'd also say that this is a reason that war must be something that we try to avoid if at all possible.

[2xx1xy1JD]

quining - the point of birth IS a bright line. Prior to birth, the fetus has a direct impact on the body of the mother. After birth, the baby does not.