After-birth abortion

"After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" is a controversial[1] article published by Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini in Journal of Medical Ethics in 2013 (available online from 2012) arguing in favor of the permissibility of infanticide.[2] The article attracted media attention[3][4] and several scholarly critiques.[5][6][7][8][9] According to Michael Tooley, "Very few philosophical publications, however, have evoked either more widespread attention, or emotionally more heated reactions, than this article has."[10][11][12]

The argument of the article is as follows:

  1. Abortion is justified because of the moral status of foetuses (their shared status of 'potential persons' is not morally relevant)
  2. Abortion is justified when the foetus has severe abnormalities or would be an intolerable burden to its mother/family (at least when adoption is not a viable option due to not being in the best interests of actual persons)
  3. Newborns have the same moral status as foetuses (there are no morally relevant differences between them)
  4. Newborns may be born with severe abnormalities (that cannot always be diagnosed before birth) and can be an intolerable burden on their mother/family (including when circumstances change after birth)
  5. Therefore, post-birth abortion (of newborns) is justified

References
  1. Kaczor, Christopher (2018). "A dubious defense of 'after-birth abortion': A reply to Räsänen". Bioethics. 32 (2): 132–137. doi:10.1111/bioe.12413.
  2. Giubilini, Alberto; Minerva, Francesca (2013). "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?". Journal of Medical Ethics. 39 (5): 261–263. doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411.
  3. O'Brien, Breda. "Swift justice for newborns who might be a 'burden on society'". The Irish Times. Retrieved 12 January 2021.
  4. Curtis, Mary C. (5 March 2012). "'After-birth abortion': Can they be serious?". Washington Post. Retrieved 12 January 2021.
  5. ""Liberals Are Disgusting": In Defence of the Publication of "After-Birth Abortion" | Practical Ethics". blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk. Retrieved 12 January 2021.
  6. Biegler, P. (2012). "Public distress as a moral consideration in after-birth abortion". Monash Bioethics Review. 30 (1): 48–51. doi:10.1007/BF03351332.
  7. Hauskeller, Michael (July 2012). "Reflections from a Troubled Stream: Giubilini and Minerva on "After-Birth Abortion"". Hastings Center Report. 42 (4): 17–20. doi:10.1002/hast.53.
  8. Wrigley, Anthony (May 2013). "Limitations on personhood arguments for abortion and 'after-birth abortion'". Journal of Medical Ethics. 39 (5): e15–e18. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100958.
  9. Rini, Regina A (May 2013). "Of course the baby should live: against 'after-birth abortion'". Journal of Medical Ethics. 39 (5): 353–356. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100640.
  10. Tooley, Michael (May 2013). "Philosophy, critical thinking and 'after-birth abortion: why should the baby live?'". Journal of Medical Ethics. 39 (5): 266–272. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100861.
  11. Benagiano, Giuseppe; Landeweerd, Laurens; Brosens, Ivo (July 2013). ""After birth" abortion: a biomedical and conceptual nonsense". The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 26 (11): 1053–1059. doi:10.3109/14767058.2013.779661.
  12. "הפלה". Wednesday, 13 January 2021
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.