‘Journal of Medical Ethics’ Stands by publication of ‘After-Birth Abortions’ Article


applepansy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Cute is a contribution. In fact it is more than a contribution. It is a survival mechanism. Babies are cute therefore we adore them and want to keep them alive. We do what we can, as parents, to present them as adorable to everyone else in the population thereby helping to gain the approval and desire of others to contribute to the babies well being. It is instinctive, a basic part of our makeup.

The fact that there are people who, apparently, do not have the instinct, or ignore it for their own agendas, is a disturbing aspect of this whole deal. Wasnt there something in prophecy about mothers becoming unnatural in their relationship to their children? This would certainly qualify.

Don't remind me about mothers becoming unnatural to their children. There's a news story in Florida of a mother selling her 6 year old daughter to 2 men for sex in exchange for a packet of crack cocaine. Sad sad sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My question is what is the difference between a newborn and a baby a week old? What's the difference between a week-old infant and a month-old infant?

So... whenever the parents get bored/frustrated with the baby (child, teen), they can after-birth abort it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is what is the difference between a newborn and a baby a week old? What's the difference between a week-old infant and a month-old infant?

So... whenever the parents get bored/frustrated with the baby (child, teen), they can after-birth abort it?

Let's bring this back into context.

The answer is No.

Let me explain... in the article it is specifically stated that the same reason for aborting the baby pre-natal has to exist post-natal for it to qualify for "ethical" after-birth-abortion.

Now, I don't know what the Medical Ethics people deem as ethical pre-natal abortion, but the article states cases like Down Syndrome, etc.

What I do know is that in the US, it is legal (hence, deemed ethical by the Supreme Court) to abort the baby for any reason. But, this is only good up to the 24th week of gestation.

So, we need more information as far as where the Medical Ethics committee (or whatever they are called) stand on abortion - because, it will have to bridge the gap between the 24th week of gestation to post-birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's bring this back into context.

The answer is No.

Let me explain... in the article it is specifically stated that the same reason for aborting the baby pre-natal has to exist post-natal for it to qualify for "ethical" after-birth-abortion.

Now, I don't know what the Medical Ethics people deem as ethical pre-natal abortion, but the article states cases like Down Syndrome, etc.

What I do know is that in the US, it is legal (hence, deemed ethical by the Supreme Court) to abort the baby for any reason. But, this is only good up to the 24th week of gestation.

So, we need more information as far as where the Medical Ethics committee (or whatever they are called) stand on abortion - because, it will have to bridge the gap between the 24th week of gestation to post-birth.

There are limited circumstances in which it is legal to abort a fetus after the 24th week. These are usually dealing with severe heath issues or deformities. Dr. Tiller (the abortion doctor that was murdered in Kansas) specialized in these kinds of cases. Something like the deformity marshac showed earlier would probably qualify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are limited circumstances in which it is legal to abort a fetus after the 24th week. These are usually dealing with severe heath issues or deformities. Dr. Tiller (the abortion doctor that was murdered in Kansas) specialized in these kinds of cases. Something like the deformity marshac showed earlier would probably qualify.

Thanks, MOE. Then the article only deems it ethical if it meets these limited circumstances. So, I think it would be disingenuous of us to make it seem like the authors of the article finds after-birth-abortion ethical on any ground.

What is good to discuss is the slippery slope this thing is teetered on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, MOE. Then the article only deems it ethical if it meets these limited circumstances. So, I think it would be disingenuous of us to make it seem like the authors of the article finds after-birth-abortion ethical on any ground.

What is good to discuss is the slippery slope this thing is teetered on.

warning: I'm just kind of ranting here. There isn't a well organized point. Read at your own peril.

Personally, I think it could almost be a moot point in the developed world. We have the technology to detect congenital abnormalities and deformities well ahead of birth. We have genetic testing in the works that can detect Down syndrome and other genetic deformities in the first trimester with remarkable accuracy. The latest of these developments is minimally invasive, requiring only a blood draw from the mother.

In the age of regular sonograms and maternity check ups, the only people who should be surprised by a congenital deformity are those who don't receive prenatal care*.

I know this doesn't address some other ethical issues. For instance, is it ethical to abort a Down syndrome fetus if you detect it early, even though the past 100 years show that many Down syndrome children can live well into their 30's? That question can be highly debated. But the shade of gray changes when you consider situations where the brain doesn't form, or the internal organs form on the outside of the body.

Anyway, my point is that with the technology we have in place today, for much of the world we could reduce the necessity of the discussion about 'after-birth-abortion' by detecting the deformities early enough to abort these fetuses well before birth.

Unfortunately, I've known women who refuse these genetic test because, as they say, "I'm not going to abort anyway, so why have the test." Usually they have in mind that they won't abort for Down syndrome, but they aren't considering that these tests look for deformities other than just Down syndrome. Every woman that refuses the genetic screening puts herself in a [unlikely] position of giving birth to a deformed child that she might have considered aborting if she had known the extent of the defect.

* This isn't fool-proof as I personally know a family who were surprised to learn of a serious heart deformity in their newborn despite receiving prenatal care at one of the countries best OB centers. But certainly, deformities like marshac's example would have been noticed well before birth with proper prenatal care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, MOE. Then the article only deems it ethical if it meets these limited circumstances. So, I think it would be disingenuous of us to make it seem like the authors of the article finds after-birth-abortion ethical on any ground.

What is good to discuss is the slippery slope this thing is teetered on.

I should also clarify, the article deems 'after-birth abortion' ethical only under the same circumstances that a society would claim 'pre-birth abortion' ethical. So if society decided that it was ethical to abort at 39 weeks for any reason, then the authors would argue that it is ethical to abort after birth for any reason.

If a society determines that it is only ethical to abort under a limited set of circumstances, then the authors would argue that it is ethical to abort after birth only under those same circumstances.

What is essential to understanding the morality of after-birth abortion is understanding the society's adopted morality of pre-birth abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not been able to pull up the whole article but I have come across this that is attributable to it:

"'We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.'

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person."

This really seems to be pretty broad. The question that comes to my mind is what about my little Asperger girl who was absolutely fearless? She would climb shelves to the top, play with knives, run to growling dogs, hissing cats, etc. Then what about depressed suicidal adults?

So back to infants, is it really psychologically less traumatizing for a mother to end the "potential life" rather than adoption? I've knows mothers who have had abortions and as much as they accept that they made the "right" choice, they still are haunted by it. Is there any less damage after the child is born and you can window shop if you want to keep it or not? or if it will contribute to your happiness or not?

There are so many questions and flaws with this that it's amazing that it's out there. While I don't fault them for publishing it (we are all entitled to our opinions and philosophical ideas) I do fault them for taking the humanity out of it. Just by using the work "potential person" one must agree that it is alive. The argument really is centered around to what level of disruptiveness is this life going to be? Somewhere there is a threshold where the disruptive factor becomes intolerable. But then, intolerable to who? Does that not argue that we are all at the same level and essentially robots? And how can one foresee the true potential of a person? Is there not an ethical standard to protect that which is helpless?

This paper, at least what I have read of it, is not well thought out in the least. It is re-hashing old ideas that should not have been published because it is full of old, outdated ideas that has been dismissed as unethical long, long ago. There is nothing new nor noteworthy. It seems to be nothing more than a college paper written for shock value. They say it is an intellectual argument. Well, intellectualism must have taken a wrong turn and made itself just a little more than dust. Because the incompleteness and ridiculousness of this whole exercise is just mind boggling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a sense, it's refreshing to see these people take the justification for abortion to its logical, obvious end. If prenatal human life is freely expendable, why not postnatal? Why should birth be the magical cutoff? Just because it's a convenient and obvious milestone?

If you are going to justify killing fetuses on the basis of some imaginary "personhood" standard, then logically that same justification applies after birth, and in fact can be extended to any arbitrary age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has ever been able to explain away the fact that each baby, before birth, has its own personality and quirks. They are not little inanimate pieces of flesh that might become a person. If this is so then how can we even begin to explain how a baby, born, is just a piece of animated flesh.

I do not believe this is just some dimwits college paper. It was thought out and done deliberately to carry out satan's plans. It has broken the ice to start us trying to defend how a baby is substantially changed in a moment to a useful, productive person, merely by being brought out into air. How can we answer that? Honestly we can not claim they are now useful to society as they lay there nearly completely helpless. The problem here is we should not. Once we do they will trap us and twist what we say same as they have done with abortion and homosexual marriage. Yet how can we just let them talk without making an attempt to stop this insidious plan?

I dont believe we can. Instead we need to deal with the climate that even makes this kind of thought debatable. We are pretty much in the same situation as Samuel the Lamanite. We need to stand on the wall and preach repentance not try to reason with their ungodliness. Their evil plans will not go away unless their hearts are changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont believe we can. Instead we need to deal with the climate that even makes this kind of thought debatable. We are pretty much in the same situation as Samuel the Lamanite. We need to stand on the wall and preach repentance not try to reason with their ungodliness. Their evil plans will not go away unless their hearts are changed.

I think you are presenting a false dichotomy here.

I'm perfectly comfortable arguing the merits of their logic in the academic arena while simultaneously telling people that they should only be having sex within marriage and not aborting their pregnancies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are presenting a false dichotomy here.

I'm perfectly comfortable arguing the merits of their logic in the academic arena while simultaneously telling people that they should only be having sex within marriage and not aborting their pregnancies.

There are no merits to their case and when you fall into the trap of debating them you give them credence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no merits to their case and when you fall into the trap of debating them you give them credence.

If you're on the non-religious side of the fence, your statement here would sound smack-dab like something from a religious nutjob and would be easily dismissed. You can't ask somebody to cry repentance when they don't recognize sin like you see it.

If you put the discussion on a religious table, then sure, the matter has no credence. But, taken out of religion, it sure does. The article was put in a medical journal, not the Ensign or any other religious media.

You mentioned in a previous post about how one can call a fetus/baby animated flesh... well, outside of religion, what's the difference between an "animated rat" to an "animated fetus"? The capacity to reason? For somebody who do not have testimonies of Spirits, our capacity to reason is merely something that we developed to survive - just like rats developed the ability to produce 12 baby rats every 3 weeks as a means to survive to compensate for their 2-year lifespan and their small size that is fodder to a lot of predators. We don't find it unethical when a mother rat eats the weakest of her young babies when there is a drought to preserve the water resource for the healthiest offspring that has a better chance at survival to maintain the productivity of the colony.

Yes, I know we are better than rats and our ethics must reflect that. But, that's where we can debate the merits of the value of human life without having to bring religion into the table - because, obviously, these people don't believe in that, and we shouldn't have to bank on them "embracing religion" to protect life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're on the non-religious side of the fence, your statement here would sound smack-dab like something from a religious nutjob and would be easily dismissed. You can't ask somebody to cry repentance when they don't recognize sin like you see it.

If you put the discussion on a religious table, then sure, the matter has no credence. But, taken out of religion, it sure does. The article was put in a medical journal, not the Ensign or any other religious media.

You mentioned in a previous post about how one can call a fetus/baby animated flesh... well, outside of religion, what's the difference between an "animated rat" to an "animated fetus"? The capacity to reason? For somebody who do not have testimonies of Spirits, our capacity to reason is merely something that we developed to survive - just like rats developed the ability to produce 12 baby rats every 3 weeks as a means to survive to compensate for their 2-year lifespan and their small size that is fodder to a lot of predators. We don't find it unethical when a mother rat eats the weakest of her young babies when there is a drought to preserve the water resource for the healthiest offspring that has a better chance at survival to maintain the productivity of the colony.

Yes, I know we are better than rats and our ethics must reflect that. But, that's where we can debate the merits of the value of human life without having to bring religion into the table - because, obviously, these people don't believe in that, and we shouldn't have to bank on them "embracing religion" to protect life.

And we are right back where we are with homosexual marriage and abortion. Losing. We can not play their game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we are right back where we are with homosexual marriage and abortion. Losing. We can not play their game.

And the reason we are losing is because, for some reason, religious folks cannot debate a topic without having to wield the religious mallet of, "You are going to hell in a handbasket". Then the debate veers from the homosexual/abortion issue to the "Is there really a hell" issue - for which, religious folks can never win, because nobody has ever seen hell and lived to tell about it.

WE need to learn to discuss topics outside of the religious turf - and that's the "silver lining" of this medical article - it opens up the discussion for you to practice on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the reason we are losing is because, for some reason, religious folks cannot debate a topic without having to wield the religious mallet of, "You are going to hell in a handbasket". Then the debate veers from the homosexual/abortion issue to the "Is there really a hell" issue - for which, religious folks can never win, because nobody has ever seen hell and lived to tell about it.

WE need to learn to discuss topics outside of the religious turf - and that's the "silver lining" of this medical article - it opens up the discussion for you to practice on.

Very well, let's play this game then. It is my understanding that for the LDS, abortion is ethical

  • if the mother's life is at stake,
  • if the fetus suffers from serious health defects,
  • or if the pregnancy is a result of incest or rape

If we can perform these abortions before birth, we ought to have the option to terminate for the same reasons until personhood is established.

  • If the mother's life is at stake, personhood doesn't even enter into it. If a child, regardless of age, threatens another person's life (mother or not) that person has right to defend life even to the point of killing the child. I take this as self-evident, but if needed we can debate this further.
  • Marshac has given a good example for how this argument plays out. I think it ultimately comes to what kind of end-of-life treatment is ethical (regardless of personhood), I'll forego this discussion (although, again, if you think this is especially germane I'll take it up).
  • Why is it permissible to abort a fetus that was conceived through rape or incest? (I have some ideas, but don't want to put words in your mouth). Any reason that you have also allows for the ethical post-birth termination of that same child until personhood is achieved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no way to discuss it without bringing religion into it. Science can not, at this point anyway, define 'personhood'. We are left to decide when this piece of tissue becomes a real, viable and useful person. If you take religious values out then you decide by using whatever perimeters you want. There can be no right or wrong to it. Each person is free to decide for him/herself what suits them.

Unfortunately when you go down that road you do open up the question of when, if ever, a particular being/piece of flesh is of any use. It also lets us debate for ourselves what to do with it if it does not prove to have the value we expected. Are we free to delete that being/piece of flesh from existence? If not then why not? It is in the way taking up resources that would be better spent on other things.

I believe that people almost always have an intrinsic sense of what is morally right but then we can debate that as well. If we can not prove it then we must disregard it as having any influence on our decisions.

Eventually we always come back to a religious/moral basis for these arguments. Otherwise there is no point in even discussing it. It would have to be the personal decision of who ever is involved, with consideration given to value and costs. Whatever the individual decided then that is it.

How many of us would make the cut? I doubt I would. My husband wouldnt. My mom might but probably not. My brothers would since they have obvious contributions. Would you make the cut Anatess? I am sure you would unless the person deciding didnt like your religious views.

Maybe that is why you can see value to their arguments and I cant. Even if we seem to have lost the survival of the species instinct we havent lost the survival of ourselves instinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was curious as to why they'd publish the article, and so I read the editor's statement. Even though I (strongly!) oppose infanticide, the editor's decision makes sense. For what it's worth, he also disagrees with the article's conclusions. But we live in a free society, the authors of the article make a well-reasoned argument, and the journal is also publishing opposing viewpoints. In fact, the editor states "Their arguments... call for rebuttal." He is basically inviting people to come and show the authors why their argument is wrong. I'd rather see people argue it out and see right prevail over wrong because it makes more sense, than simply shut down the whole debate by stifling free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy it. When was the last time you saw an academic article or study on race-based differences in intelligence? Somehow, suggesting that your ancestry might affect your performance is taboo and not politically correct, but suggesting that killing your infant is an acceptable practice is protected and valued as a contribution. I call shenanigans on the editor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, gasp, that would be bigoted! Some things are just not done no matter how interesting it might be.

Please dont get on me about how we are all equal in intelligence. how in the world would we even know? Are girls smarter than boys? Or are boys smarter than girls? Are girls more emotional?

Now that I think about it there are lots of truly taboo subjects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[*]If the mother's life is at stake, personhood doesn't even enter into it. If a child, regardless of age, threatens another person's life (mother or not) that person has right to defend life even to the point of killing the child. I take this as self-evident, but if needed we can debate this further.

....

[*]Why is it permissible to abort a fetus that was conceived through rape or incest? (I have some ideas, but don't want to put words in your mouth). Any reason that you have also allows for the ethical post-birth termination of that same child until personhood is achieved.

While I can see the point on #2 (removed), I don't understand any after-birth reasoning on the remaining two.

What is this? "Oh, despite the fact that Mom made it through the birthing process without any harm, now that the baby is born we believe he might have caused a dangerous pregnancy even though it was more or less a normal pregnancy! In order to protect Mom's life we must after-birth abort it!" Or "It was a rather tricky pregnancy, but even though Mom gave birth just fine we need to after-birth abort the baby just to show it who's boss!"

"Here, ma'am, your bouncy bay boy/girl!"

"Yeah... I forgot to mention it was product of rape/incest."

I'm sorry, but the two aforementioned incidents should be dealt with PRIOR to birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I can see the point on #2 (removed), I don't understand any after-birth reasoning on the remaining two.

What is this? "Oh, despite the fact that Mom made it through the birthing process without any harm, now that the baby is born we believe he might have caused a dangerous pregnancy even though it was more or less a normal pregnancy! In order to protect Mom's life we must after-birth abort it!" Or "It was a rather tricky pregnancy, but even though Mom gave birth just fine we need to after-birth abort the baby just to show it who's boss!"

"Here, ma'am, your bouncy bay boy/girl!"

"Yeah... I forgot to mention it was product of rape/incest."

I'm sorry, but the two aforementioned incidents should be dealt with PRIOR to birth.

But those aren't the only considerations a society makes when considering the ethics of abortion. Would it be ethical for a woman who conceived through rape to abort the child at 39 weeks? The authors of the article argue that if that abortion is ethical, then after-birth abortion would be ethical, too. But if you don't consider abortion at 39 weeks because of rape to be ethical, then neither would the after-birth abortion.

Again, to restate the crux of their argument--when all of the conditions are present on which a society considers abortion to be ethical prior to birth, in those cases the abortion is just as ethical after birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But those aren't the only considerations a society makes when considering the ethics of abortion. Would it be ethical for a woman who conceived through rape to abort the child at 39 weeks? The authors of the article argue that if that abortion is ethical, then after-birth abortion would be ethical, too. But if you don't consider abortion at 39 weeks because of rape to be ethical, then neither would the after-birth abortion.

Again, to restate the crux of their argument--when all of the conditions are present on which a society considers abortion to be ethical prior to birth, in those cases the abortion is just as ethical after birth.

I considered 39 weeks to be a dangerous time to perform an abortion. In my perspective, the ethics have a time limit. Putting the mother's life in danger with a late-term abortion is clearly not ethical, so there must be a time frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share