Australian Ethicists Argue in Favor of Infanticide in the “Journal of Medical Ethics”

When one plays God, incongruously divining right from wrong, the konzentrationslagern surely loom on the horizon:

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions‘ as Newborns ’Are Not Persons’

Liz Klimas – The Blaze

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. 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.

[…]

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

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.

The National Catholic Register thinks that these authors are right — once you accept their ideas on personhood. The Register states that the argument made by the ethicists is almost pro-life in that it “highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument”:

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

First Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn’t mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth abortions in future medical procedures, arguments such as “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious” began in much the same way in bioethics journals.

Explore posts in the same categories: Abortion, academia, Family, Health, human interest, Insanity, Medicine, Parenting, propaganda, Psychology

8 Comments on “Australian Ethicists Argue in Favor of Infanticide in the “Journal of Medical Ethics””

  1. Gonzo Says:

    Just bash babies born with deformities against rocks, like they did in the good ol’ days before the invention of chemistry. It is so nice to know that chemistry has done away with that whole bloody bashing about of babies heads, so that we don’t have a sea of crimson with which to judge our immorality.

    • Gonzo Says:

      Oh, btw, what is the ethical position for NOT doing pro-bono work to save the livelihood of babies born with issues? Just wondering if doctor and hospital monetary considerations outweigh human life as far as these medical ethicists are concerned. After all, that *is* the expense mentioned as a contributing factor to wanting to terminate life.


  2. My recent bible study had me examining the practices of the pagan cultures in the biblical days of Exodus, Joshua, etc. Interestingly, legend has it that the city walls of Jericho were built with the bones of their own children sacrificed to their god Molech. When Joshua destroyed the city, GOD told him to utterly destroy it because of their sin. How different are we today than those of Jericho whom GOD cursed and destroyed? Have we completely lost the fear of GOD to the point we don’t even consider this a sin? GOD help us!

  3. Leatherneck Says:

    Sounds good. Let’s start with these two puke faces that think it is OK, bexause they are not very tall, and have small third legs. What good are they?

  4. Noreen Says:

    I wonder where This slippery slope will lead to??? Not really, killing of the elderly, the handicapped etc…
    This is a page right from the communist playbook, reasonable people with a heart will think “well they’re right what kind of life can this poor child have” They make the case that this baby can’t be a productive member of the state when that isn’t a human’s meaning to life at all. You live life for yourself not for the benefit of the state. It’s all under the guise of what’s best for the family what a load.


  5. How disgusting!

    As a witness to abortion… abortion or infantcide is still MURDER!

    No amount of philosphy, ethics, liberalism, humansim will save the souls of the authors of this bulls*** paper.

    Repent Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva your souls are in danger! No abortionist will escape Gods judgement!

  6. PB-in-AL Says:

    The really pernicious thing about this stance is that one can arbitrarily define what it means to be human. By the definition above, one isn’t likely to ‘qualify’ till about age 4, give or take. But the defining criteria could be changed to ‘thinking a certain way about’ a particular subject, or being part of a particular people group or religion, etc. Islam has already drawn this line for ‘infidels’, we live under the ‘gracious auspices’ of the Moslems; but they could kill us and be applauded for doing so, since we’re not really humans.

    I wonder how Steven hawking feels about this line of thought.

  7. tgusa Says:

    I just re-watched Casablanca last night and coupled with your most recent post on the growth of totalitarianism I can just hear these guys saying that we have a dossier on all you humans who do not embrace our ideology…And we know how many pets you have cause we hate them too.
    Do you ever feel as if you are an enemy of the Reich as Victor Laszlo (he dirty truth writher/printer) was in
    Casablanca, surrounded by a bunch of Major Strasser types? I do. So, some place gave these guys a piece of paper stating that they are ethicists and now they think that they really are ethicists. Even if I tried I couldn’t stoop so low as to become one of these alleged ethicists. So my question is can we late tem abort these guys without risking criminal charges?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: