Post Birth Abortion.

[Frenger]

Just so the peanut gallery didn't go too off topic, I thought I would start a discussion here.

Bob Enyart in his response to Rando said he was protesting a recent paper that suggested Post-Birth abortion should be acceptable under certain circumstances.

The paper is here http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

And the conclusion is here.

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

Personally I don't see it as post-birth abortion, it's just plain old murder to me. The only way it would be permissible is if the baby had 0% survival chance and was in a lot of pain, then I would count that as euthanasia even though the baby doesn't have the capacity to make that choice.

Thoughts?

 

[Laurens]

I agree, once a baby is born it has developed a brain and a nervous system - which is something that distinguishes it from a foetus at the early stages of development. We can therefore reasonably assume that a newborn baby is capable of experiencing pain unlike a small cluster of cells. We might also reasonably assume that a newborn baby is also experiencing emotional distress, although I cannot be certain of that.

Then there is also the fact that a foetus whilst inside the womb cannot reasonably be given to someone else, a newborn baby can be given up for adoption. Given this option I'd say that there is absolutely no moral reason to murder a newborn baby when it could be given a loving home with someone else.

 

[bluejatheist]

They had a full pregnancy to decide whether they wanted the baby or not, it's a bit too late once the thing's born.

A counter-question, what if the baby had a birth defect that was undetected for whatever reason, a major defect where maturation isn't going to happen and the mere act of existing is suffering for the baby. Should the parents be allowed to keep the suffering thing alive at the expense of hospital attention and facilities?

 

[KuroAkuma]

Laurens,

A fetus has a brain and nervous system before birth and isn't a distinguishing feature of a baby vs fetus.
Scientifically the fetus is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate after the embryonic stage and before birth. In human IIRC its around 9-38 weeks gestation
The point regarding pain is rather interesting, pain does require certain brain structures to be present, which are typically not present before the 3rd trimester. [1]

Regarding the post-birth abortion paper:
The authors bring up the point that newborns are killed given extreme circumstances. [2] They're suggestion at taking this beyond euthanasia for severely ill newborns is a bit too far. In reading their arguement for allowing abortion instead of adoption in cases of healthy newborns, I find myself disagreeing but not really sure how to counter or rationally argue against it. Can anybody help? I've quoted their argument below, or see OP for link to full text

Bluejatheist,

That decision would be up to the treating doctors, if that condition is treatable and survival/quality of life possible and acceptable risk/benefit then they are obligated to offer treatment. The decision then rests on the parents to accept/decline the choice. If treatment isn't going to be fruitful or beneficial then the parents are not able to force the hospital/doctors to treat the baby. That been said a lot of the time these decision will be a judgment call to be make by doctors in conjunction with the parents.


[1] http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201429
[2] Verhagen E, Sauer P. The groningen protocol,euthanasia in severely Ill newborns. N Engl J Med 2005;10:959-62.

A possible objection to our argument is that after-birth abortion should be practised just on potential people who could never have a life worth living.9 Accordingly, healthy and potentially happy people should be given up for adoption if the family cannot raise them up. Why should we kill a healthy newborn when giving it up for adoption would not breach anyone's right but possibly increase the happiness of people involved (adopters and adoptee)?

Our reply is the following. We have previously discussed the argument from potentiality, showing that it is not strong enough to outweigh the consideration of the interests of actual people. Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero. On this perspective, the interests of the actual people involved matter, and among these interests, we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption. Birthmothers are often reported to experience serious psychological problems due to the inability to elaborate their loss and to cope with their grief.10 It is true that grief and sense of loss may accompany both abortion and after-birth abortion as well as adoption, but we cannot assume that for the birthmother the latter is the least traumatic. For example, 'those who grieve a death must accept the irreversibility of the loss, but natural mothers often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible'.11

We are not suggesting that these are definitive reasons against adoption as a valid alternative to after-birth abortion. Much depends on circumstances and psychological reactions. What we are suggesting is that, if interests of actual people should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption.

EDIT: typos

 

[nemesiss]

Just so the peanut gallery didn't go too off topic, I thought I would start a discussion here.

Bob Enyart in his response to Rando said he was protesting a recent paper that suggested Post-Birth abortion should be acceptable under certain circumstances.

The paper is here http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

And the conclusion is here.

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

Personally I don't see it as post-birth abortion, it's just plain old murder to me. The only way it would be permissible is if the baby had 0% survival chance and was in a lot of pain, then I would count that as euthanasia even though the baby doesn't have the capacity to make that choice.

Thoughts?

post birth abortion has existed for ages, it's called: ADOPTION or in basic term "putting that little bastard into a orphanage". what they describe is just murder, though it can be an interesting subject "can euthanasia of a child be justified". but then again, i doubt you could talk like a rational human with folks like bob enyart.

 

[Laurens]

Laurens,

A fetus has a brain and nervous system before birth and isn't a distinguishing feature of a baby vs fetus.
Scientifically the fetus is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate after the embryonic stage and before birth. In human IIRC its around 9-38 weeks gestation
The point regarding pain is rather interesting, pain does require certain brain structures to be present, which are typically not present before the 3rd trimester. [1]

Indeed I understand that the nervous system develops in utero, which is why I qualified my remarks with "at the early stages of development". I am of the opinion that preferentially abortions should be carried out before the nervous system develops fully so that we can avoid causing pain to the foetus if possible, although I understand that this is not possible in all cases.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I agree that this is indistinguishable from infanticide - because it is infanticide.

The paper is a waste of ethical thinking and funding.

Why not do a paper on the current methods of abortion, and explore a more ethical method of performing one?

Even better, why not explore the socio-economic causes for abortion and explore practical solutions which society can adopt, and - further - explore their impacts and the ethics of those impacts?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Did I mention that there's good eating on a fetus? Probably better eating on a newborn, the skin doesn't have that briny amniotic fluid taste.

Also, anyone who just says "adoption" and thinks they've made a valid point is dumb, and has NOT made a valid point.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Regarding the post-birth abortion paper:
The authors bring up the point that newborns are killed given extreme circumstances. [2] They're suggestion at taking this beyond euthanasia for severely ill newborns is a bit too far. In reading their arguement for allowing abortion instead of adoption in cases of healthy newborns, I find myself disagreeing but not really sure how to counter or rationally argue against it. Can anybody help? I've quoted their argument below, or see OP for link to full text

[1] http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201429
[2] Verhagen E, Sauer P. The groningen protocol,euthanasia in severely Ill newborns. N Engl J Med 2005;10:959-62.

A possible objection to our argument is that after-birth abortion should be practised just on potential people who could never have a life worth living.9 Accordingly, healthy and potentially happy people should be given up for adoption if the family cannot raise them up. Why should we kill a healthy newborn when giving it up for adoption would not breach anyone's right but possibly increase the happiness of people involved (adopters and adoptee)?

Our reply is the following. We have previously discussed the argument from potentiality, showing that it is not strong enough to outweigh the consideration of the interests of actual people. Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero. On this perspective, the interests of the actual people involved matter, and among these interests, we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption. Birthmothers are often reported to experience serious psychological problems due to the inability to elaborate their loss and to cope with their grief.10 It is true that grief and sense of loss may accompany both abortion and after-birth abortion as well as adoption, but we cannot assume that for the birthmother the latter is the least traumatic. For example, 'those who grieve a death must accept the irreversibility of the loss, but natural mothers often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible'.11

We are not suggesting that these are definitive reasons against adoption as a valid alternative to after-birth abortion. Much depends on circumstances and psychological reactions. What we are suggesting is that, if interests of actual people should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption.

The argument fails on two counts:

1) The interests of "actual people" outweighing those of "potential people".
2) The level of trauma due to the irreversibility of the loss of a baby due to "post-birth abortion" versus the loss through adoption.

1) Bearing in mind that the baby is now born, it is too late to split hairs over "potential" v "actual".

More to the point, the interests of "actual people" include potential adopters, as well as that of the mother - although their conclusion appears to imply that the mother's interest pre-empts other "actual people". The benefit to the adopter may - at least - equal, and therefore nullify, the loss to the mother.

2) Their argument - that the mother's trauma over a "post-birth abortion" not necessarily being more traumatic than that due to adoption - seems incredibly poorly argued.

Remember; the mother has chosen to have her new-born baby killed.

That guilt will stay with the mother for the rest of her life.

[Although she'd have a certain amount of guilt over a normal (pre-birth) abortion, the mother doesn't generally see the foetus under the latter circumstance, and the foetus is exactly that; not a "baby".]

How can that be construed as less traumatic than giving up the baby for adoption?

Even if she has dreams of her child returning to her, she always has the consolation that her child is alive. This is exchanging one positive form of closure - "irreversibility" - for another negative one (that of the "irreversible" death of the baby).

Kindest regards,

James

 

[KuroAkuma]

Indeed I understand that the nervous system develops in utero, which is why I qualified my remarks with "at the early stages of development". I am of the opinion that preferentially abortions should be carried out before the nervous system develops fully so that we can avoid causing pain to the foetus if possible, although I understand that this is not possible in all cases.

I was just wanting to be more specific with the terminology used, by calling it a fetus it already has a brain/nervous system (not fully developed but present). But I do take your point that you were meaning to compare it to the embryonic stage before those structures were clearly present.

I agree with you, that abortions should be carried out as early in development as possible as it is safer for the mother, and reduces the suffering for the fetus.


James,
Thanks for the rebuttal to the author's points.

Infanticide is simply the intentional killing of infants, so I agree post-birth abortion, infant euthanasia both fall under the term infanticide. I think we both agree that the intentional killing of healthy infants should not be morally permissible, a far better option would be for the adoption of those infants.
I was curious as to what your thoughts on infant euthanasia were?
My view is that given infants are incapable of informed consent, the responsibility and decision falls to the parents. In cases, where there is little to no hope of survival or quality of life infant euthanasia should be permissible and when such decisions are made soon after birth, it can be classed as an extension of abortion (though the naming of such practices isn't the issue really, just whether such practices should be permissible)

 

[mick1le2pick]

I agree that is just killing, I think abortion should be done early in the pregnancy, not after.
WTF :?: :?: :?:

 

[KuroAkuma]

I agree that is just killing, I think abortion should be done early in the pregnancy, not after.
WTF :?: :?: :?:

What about late in pregnancy? Do you have any objections to abortions late in pregnancy? If you do/don't what reasons do you give for allowing/not allowing abortion late in pregnancy?

I don't see many people against early term abortions, its later in pregnancy where people start having problems. Just by saying you support abortion early in pregnancy doesn't really address the issue at hand.

 

[malicious_bloke]

I can think of plenty of people I would like to retroactively abort.

 

[TheMissingN]

I agree with anyone saying that post birth abortion is equivalent to infanticide, and if forced to give a good-or-bad answer, I would concede that this is a bad thing.

But I can't help but notice that a lot of people's arguments seem to be relying on the basic premise that murdering a child is bad. Of course, I agree with this, but only to the extent that murdering any person can be considered bad. For some reason though, the murder of infants tends to be considered excessively immoral, and is often given as the typical example of something downright evil.

So here's a question I would like to ask anyone involved in this discussion: From a moral point of view, is infanticide worse than murder? And if so, why? Because personally, I'm not convinced there's any logical reason for feeling that way.

Yours, etc.
Alexander

 

[Andiferous]

"post birth abortion"

It seems stupid to point this out but, this is a thread on abortion (as far as I can tell).

Post-birth abortion is, awesomely, a new cool word for murder. I mean, is there birth after death? Or something akin to that. Can abortion happen after birth?

IMO, not. But. When is birth, I guess?

Love you all. What do you think? When does murder start? I think this is the question. Hugs from me. Philosophy is the best. This is a fiery topic, after all.

 

[Aught3]

Post-birth abortion is, awesomely, a new cool word for murder. I mean, is there birth after death? Or something akin to that. Can abortion happen after birth?

Reminds me of the phrase 'late-term abortion'. Once the baby has reached term you can't have an abortion anymore, it's born!

 

[Andiferous]

Hey Aught.

I sorta think that after birth the term would be either "euthanasia" or "murder" (both very distinct concepts).

I guess this all depends on where one stands on abortion, euthanasia, and murder. Man, this is going 'round in circles.

Yes Aught, I agree.

Did someone mention my hero, Jonathan Swift, earlier? This is a bit of a Modest Proposal.

 

[TheMissingN]

Post-birth abortion is, awesomely, a new cool word for murder. I mean, is there birth after death? Or something akin to that. Can abortion happen after birth?

I disagree with your point. Post-birth abortion is arguably a type of murder, but that does not make the word redundant. You yourself admit that "euthanasia" and "murder" are two different things, when in fact euthanasia is merely the act of killing someone under certain conditions. The same holds for post-birth abortion.

The reason the distinction is useful is that "murder" is negatively charged, and is usually meant in the sense of the immoral act. When it is questionable whether the act is immoral, it makes sense to use a different word, such as "euthanasia", "mercy-killing", or in this case, "post-birth abortion" (Presumably this is how "euthanasia" became a word in the first place). I also think that even though the expression "post-birth abortion" is technically wrong (an abortion is by definition performed on foeti), it's nevertheless pretty clear and unambiguous.

Yours, etc.
Alexander

 

[WarK]

I disagree with your point. Post-birth abortion is arguably a type of murder, but that does not make the word redundant. You yourself admit that "euthanasia" and "murder" are two different things, when in fact euthanasia is merely the act of killing someone under certain conditions. The same holds for post-birth abortion.

The reason the distinction is useful is that "murder" is negatively charged, and is usually meant in the sense of the immoral act. When it is questionable whether the act is immoral, it makes sense to use a different word, such as "euthanasia", "mercy-killing", or in this case, "post-birth abortion" (Presumably this is how "euthanasia" became a word in the first place). I also think that even though the expression "post-birth abortion" is technically wrong (an abortion is by definition performed on foeti), it's nevertheless pretty clear and unambiguous.

Why do people come up with stupid names for things that already have names?

Murdering a newborn already has its name, it's not post-birth abortion, it's INFANTICIDE!!!

 

[tuxbox]

Why do people come up with stupid names for things that already have names?

Murdering a newborn already has its name, it's not post-birth abortion, it's INFANTICIDE!!!

Indeed....