After-Birth Abortion: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Fixed typos and removed the underlinked tag |
Genfixes, removed stub tag |
||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{short description|Controversial comparison of abortion and euthanasia}} |
||
{{about|the neologism used in a paper|euthanasia of newborns|Child euthanasia|pregnancy abortion|Abortion}} |
{{about|the neologism used in a paper|euthanasia of newborns|Child euthanasia|pregnancy abortion|Abortion}} |
||
{{orphan|date=February 2024}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
{{use British English|date=May 2024}} |
|||
{{use dmy dates|date=May 2024}} |
|||
"'''After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?'''"<ref name=":0" /> is a controversial article published by Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini. Available online from 2012 and published in the ''[[Journal of Medical Ethics]]'' in 2013,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Kaczor |first=Christopher |date=2018 |title=A Dubious Defense of 'After-Birth Abortion': A Reply to Räsänen |journal=Bioethics |volume=32 |issue=2 |pages=132–137 |doi=10.1111/bioe.12413 |pmid=29171674 |s2cid=3765365}}</ref> it argues to call child euthanasia or [[infanticide]] "after-birth abortion" and highlights similarities between abortion and [[euthanasia]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Biegler |first=Paul |date=2012 |title=Public Distress As a Moral Consideration in After-Birth Abortion |journal=Monash Bioethics Review |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=48–51 |doi=10.1007/BF03351332 |pmid=22924239 |doi-access=free}}</ref> |
|||
| ⚫ | The article attracted media attention,<ref>{{cite news |last=O'Brien |first=Breda |date=3 March 2012 |title=Swift Justice for Newborns Who Might Be a 'Burden on Society' |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/swift-justice-for-newborns-who-might-be-a-burden-on-society-1.474591 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210113112433/https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/swift-justice-for-newborns-who-might-be-a-burden-on-society-1.474591 |archive-date=13 January 2021 |access-date=7 May 2024 |newspaper=The Irish Times |issn=0791-5144}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Curtis |first=Mary C. |author-link=Mary C. Curtis |date=5 March 2012 |title='After-Birth Abortion': Can They Be Serious? |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/after-birth-abortion-can-they-be-serious/2012/03/03/gIQADgiOsR_blog.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210113100858/https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/after-birth-abortion-can-they-be-serious/2012/03/03/gIQADgiOsR_blog.html |archive-date=13 January 2021 |access-date=7 May 2024 |newspaper=The Washington Post |issn=0190-8286}}</ref> including threats to its authors,<ref>{{cite news |last=Savulescu |first=Julian |date=28 February 2012 |title='Liberals Are Disgusting': In Defence of the Publication of 'After-Birth Abortion' |url=http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/02/%E2%80%9Cliberals-are-disgusting%E2%80%9D-in-defence-of-the-publication-of-%E2%80%9Cafter-birth-abortion%E2%80%9D/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210113105035/http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/02/%E2%80%9Cliberals-are-disgusting%E2%80%9D-in-defence-of-the-publication-of-%E2%80%9Cafter-birth-abortion%E2%80%9D/ |archive-date=13 January 2021 |access-date=7 May 2024 |work=Practical Ethics}}</ref> as well as several scholarly critiques.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Hauskeller |first=Michael |title=Reflections from a Troubled Stream: Giubilini and Minerva on 'After-Birth Abortion' |journal=Hastings Center Report |date=July 2012 |volume=42 |issue=4 |pages=17–20 |doi=10.1002/hast.53|pmid=22777974 |url=https://philarchive.org/rec/HAURFA }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Wrigley |first=Anthony |date=May 2013 |title=Limitations on Personhood Arguments for Abortion and 'After-Birth Abortion' |url=http://eprints.keele.ac.uk/3154/1/Limitations%20on%20Personhood%20Arguments%20SUBMISSION%20to%20JME.doc |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |volume=39 |issue=5 |pages=e15–e18 |doi=10.1136/medethics-2012-100958 |pmid=23637455 |s2cid=26659631}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Rini |first=Regina A. |date=May 2013 |title=Of Course the Baby Should Live: Against 'After-Birth Abortion' |url=https://philarchive.org/rec/RINOCT |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |volume=39 |issue=5 |pages=353–356 |doi=10.1136/medethics-2012-100640 |pmid=23637452 |s2cid=26722229}}</ref> [[Michael Tooley]] summarised the criticism and controversy, saying: "Very few philosophical [[Academic journal|publications]], however, have evoked either more widespread attention, or emotionally more heated reactions, than this article has."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Tooley |first=Michael |date=May 2013 |title=Philosophy, Critical Thinking and 'After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?' |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |volume=39 |issue=5 |pages=266–272 |doi=10.1136/medethics-2012-100861 |pmid=23637425 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Benagiano, Landeweerd & Brosens 2013">{{cite journal |last1=Benagiano |first1=Giuseppe |last2=Landeweerd |first2=Laurens |last3=Brosens |first3=Ivo |date=July 2013 |title='After Birth' Abortion: A Biomedical and Conceptual Nonsense |journal=The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine |volume=26 |issue=11 |pages=1053–1059 |doi=10.3109/14767058.2013.779661 |pmid=23495749 |s2cid=207530613 |doi-access=free}}</ref> |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
== Overview == |
|||
The argument of the article is as follows: |
|||
The argument of the "After-Birth Abortion" article is as follows:<ref name=":0">{{cite journal |last1=Giubilini |first1=Alberto |last2=Minerva |first2=Francesca |date=2013 |title=After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live? |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |volume=39 |issue=5 |pages=261–263 |doi=10.1136/medethics-2011-100411 |pmid=22361296 |doi-access=free |hdl-access=free |hdl=2434/813845}}</ref><ref name="Manninen 2013">{{cite journal |last=Manninen |first=Bertha Alvarez |date=2013 |title=Yes, the Baby Should Live: A Pro-Choice Response to Giubilini and Minerva |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43282725 |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |volume=39 |issue=5 |pages=330–335 |doi=10.1136/medethics-2012-100656 |issn=0306-6800 |jstor=43282725|pmid=23637447 }}</ref> |
|||
# Abortion is justified because of the moral status of [[Fetus|foetuses]] (their shared status of '[[Potential person|potential persons]]' is not morally relevant) |
|||
# Abortion is justified when the foetus has severe [[Birth defect|abnormalities]] or would be an intolerable burden to its mother |
# Abortion is justified because of the moral status of [[foetuses]]; their shared status of [[potential person]]s is not morally relevant. |
||
# Abortion is justified when the foetus has severe [[Birth defect|abnormalities]] or would be an intolerable burden to its mother and family, at least when adoption is not a viable option due to not being in the best interests of actual persons. |
|||
# [[ |
# [[Newborns]] have the same moral status as foetuses (there are no morally relevant differences between them) if they suffer unbearably. |
||
# Newborns may be born with severe abnormalities |
# Newborns may be born with severe abnormalities that cannot always be [[diagnosed]] before birth, and can be an intolerable burden on their mother and family, including when circumstances change after birth. |
||
# Therefore |
# Therefore "after-birth abortion" (euthanasia of newborns) can be justified in some circumstances. These circumstances include, according to the authors: if a disease was not detected during pregnancy, if something went wrong during delivery, or if there are changes in the family's economic, social, or psychological circumstances. The authors argue that even a newborn child without any disabilities may be euthanised under these circumstances. |
||
In the words of Bertha Alvarez Manninen, in a paper also written in the ''Journal of Medical Ethics'', "Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue that because there are no significant differences between a fetus and a neonate, in that neither possess sufficiently robust mental traits to qualify as persons, a neonate may be justifiably killed for any reason that also justifies abortion. To further emphasise their view that a newly born infant is more on a par with a fetus rather than a more developed baby, Giubilini and Minerva elect to call this 'after-birth abortion' rather than infanticide. ... I argue that their thesis is incorrect, and that the moral permissibility of abortion does not entail the moral permissibility of 'after-birth' abortion."<ref name="Manninen 2013"/> |
|||
“Abortion” is the ending of a [[process]], and in this case it refers to ending the process of [[pregnancy]] before its natural conclusion. Therefore, “after-birth abortion” is a self-contradictory phrase since birth ends the pregnancy leaving no pregnancy to be aborted. It is a phrase composed of words to mask the true intent of [[infanticide]]. |
|||
Abortion is the ending of an ongoing [[process]] before its completion, and, in the case of Giubilini and Minerva, it refers to ending the process of [[pregnancy]] after its natural conclusion of birth, thus making "after-birth abortion" a self-contradictory phrase, since birth ends the pregnancy leaving no pregnancy to be aborted. Some critics of the idea believe it is a phrase composed by Giubilini and Minerva to hide the uncomfortable word "[[infanticide]]", which describes a crime. Another critical article concluded that "having investigated the new concept we have concluded that the term 'after-birth abortion' is biologically and conceptually nonsensical".<ref name="Benagiano, Landeweerd & Brosens 2013"/> |
|||
==References== |
== References == |
||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist}} |
||
| ⚫ | |||
[[Category:2012 controversies]] |
[[Category:2012 controversies]] |
||
[[Category:2013 controversies]] |
[[Category:2013 controversies]] |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
[[Category:Bioethics]] |
[[Category:Bioethics]] |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
{{abortion-stub}} |
|||
{{ethics-stub}} |
|||
Latest revision as of 16:26, 18 October 2024
 | This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (December 2023) |
"After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?"[1] is a controversial article published by Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini. Available online from 2012 and published in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 2013,[2] it argues to call child euthanasia or infanticide "after-birth abortion" and highlights similarities between abortion and euthanasia.[3]
The article attracted media attention,[4][5] including threats to its authors,[6] as well as several scholarly critiques.[7][8][9] Michael Tooley summarised the criticism and controversy, saying: "Very few philosophical publications, however, have evoked either more widespread attention, or emotionally more heated reactions, than this article has."[10][11]
Overview
[edit]The argument of the "After-Birth Abortion" article is as follows:[1][12]
- Abortion is justified because of the moral status of foetuses; their shared status of potential persons is not morally relevant.
- Abortion is justified when the foetus has severe abnormalities or would be an intolerable burden to its mother and family, at least when adoption is not a viable option due to not being in the best interests of actual persons.
- Newborns have the same moral status as foetuses (there are no morally relevant differences between them) if they suffer unbearably.
- Newborns may be born with severe abnormalities that cannot always be diagnosed before birth, and can be an intolerable burden on their mother and family, including when circumstances change after birth.
- Therefore "after-birth abortion" (euthanasia of newborns) can be justified in some circumstances. These circumstances include, according to the authors: if a disease was not detected during pregnancy, if something went wrong during delivery, or if there are changes in the family's economic, social, or psychological circumstances. The authors argue that even a newborn child without any disabilities may be euthanised under these circumstances.
In the words of Bertha Alvarez Manninen, in a paper also written in the Journal of Medical Ethics, "Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue that because there are no significant differences between a fetus and a neonate, in that neither possess sufficiently robust mental traits to qualify as persons, a neonate may be justifiably killed for any reason that also justifies abortion. To further emphasise their view that a newly born infant is more on a par with a fetus rather than a more developed baby, Giubilini and Minerva elect to call this 'after-birth abortion' rather than infanticide. ... I argue that their thesis is incorrect, and that the moral permissibility of abortion does not entail the moral permissibility of 'after-birth' abortion."[12]
Abortion is the ending of an ongoing process before its completion, and, in the case of Giubilini and Minerva, it refers to ending the process of pregnancy after its natural conclusion of birth, thus making "after-birth abortion" a self-contradictory phrase, since birth ends the pregnancy leaving no pregnancy to be aborted. Some critics of the idea believe it is a phrase composed by Giubilini and Minerva to hide the uncomfortable word "infanticide", which describes a crime. Another critical article concluded that "having investigated the new concept we have concluded that the term 'after-birth abortion' is biologically and conceptually nonsensical".[11]
References
[edit]- ^ a b 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. hdl:2434/813845. PMID 22361296.
- ^ Kaczor, Christopher (2018). "A Dubious Defense of 'After-Birth Abortion': A Reply to Räsänen". Bioethics. 32 (2): 132–137. doi:10.1111/bioe.12413. PMID 29171674. S2CID 3765365.
- ^ Biegler, Paul (2012). "Public Distress As a Moral Consideration in After-Birth Abortion". Monash Bioethics Review. 30 (1): 48–51. doi:10.1007/BF03351332. PMID 22924239.
- ^ O'Brien, Breda (3 March 2012). "Swift Justice for Newborns Who Might Be a 'Burden on Society'". The Irish Times. ISSN 0791-5144. Archived from the original on 13 January 2021. Retrieved 7 May 2024.
- ^ Curtis, Mary C. (5 March 2012). "'After-Birth Abortion': Can They Be Serious?". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on 13 January 2021. Retrieved 7 May 2024.
- ^ Savulescu, Julian (28 February 2012). "'Liberals Are Disgusting': In Defence of the Publication of 'After-Birth Abortion'". Practical Ethics. Archived from the original on 13 January 2021. Retrieved 7 May 2024.
- ^ 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. PMID 22777974.
- ^ 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. PMID 23637455. S2CID 26659631.
- ^ 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. PMID 23637452. S2CID 26722229.
- ^ 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. PMID 23637425.
- ^ a b 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. PMID 23495749. S2CID 207530613.
- ^ a b Manninen, Bertha Alvarez (2013). "Yes, the Baby Should Live: A Pro-Choice Response to Giubilini and Minerva". Journal of Medical Ethics. 39 (5): 330–335. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100656. ISSN 0306-6800. JSTOR 43282725. PMID 23637447.