Ethicists Argue for After-Birth Abortion

[Valin]

Philadelphia Magazine:

A paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics is ruffling lots of feathers.

Emily Leaman

2/28/2012

 

Pockets of the Internet are just beginning to bubble over paper published in the March issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics. Editors of the journal decided to prepublish the paper, titled, "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?", online last week, and it's already making waves. From the 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.

 

So far, only a handful of blogs have picked it up (this one includes a lengthier summary of the authors' arguments, if you're interested), but, predictably, the comments sections on those posts are blowing up. Earlier today, the editors of the journal published a response in defense of their decision to publish the paper:

 

(Snip)

 

H/T Hot Air

 

[Valin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU9KllHwOtk

[SrWoodchuck]

My question forAlberto Giubilini & Francesca Minerva, the two "Awful-stralian" intellectual "ethicists:"

 

Is it too late for your mom's to have an after-birth abortion? Apparently your mothers didn't have any children that lived....

[RandyM]

I'm glad I didn't read this right after eating....

[Pepper]

More comments here

 

"Well now, I don't like tall people much - they block my view at the cinema. Surely I should be allowed to dispose of them too? After all, they are an inconvenient nuisance...

 

I suppose I should've had my two year old shot when he broke his leg too, then? After all, it was pretty inconvenient for me to have to carry him around all day for two months."

[Pepper]

Argument for Post-Birth Abortions Shows 'Absurdity' of Pro-Choice Movement?

 

Australian Ethicists Present Support for Infanticide Based on Legality of Abortion

 

 

There is no reason why "after-birth abortions," or killing babies after they are born, should be illegal if abortion itself is legal, two Australian ethicists have argued in a journal report called "barbaric" by readers. However, some suggest that the article is only meant to expose the "absurdity" of pro-choice views.

 

[Valin]

More comments here

 

"Well now, I don't like tall people much - they block my view at the cinema. Surely I should be allowed to dispose of them too? After all, they are an inconvenient nuisance...

 

I suppose I should've had my two year old shot when he broke his leg too, then? After all, it was pretty inconvenient for me to have to carry him around all day for two months."

 

What we have here is (yet one more) teachable moment...Time for another simple question(Pat.Pend.) Is Abortion a moral wrong? If it is (as I believe) should society condone it? And if we do condone it, what does that say about how we view who/what we are? Are we just an animal, smarter than others, but really no different? And if this is true (we're just an animal), does that mean anything is allowable? If it is....why?