Abortion outrage: Mums should be allowed to terminate newborns, say Australian academics
by: By staff writers and AAP
From: news.com.au
March 02, 2012 7:44AM

RESULTS: MORAL ISSUE
This poll is closed.
Should mother's be allowed to terminate newborns?
Yes
11.99%(266 votes)
No
88.01%(1953 votes)
Total votes: 2219

KILLING newborn babies should be allowed if the mother wishes, Australian philosophers have argued in a prestigious journal.
Their argument, that it is morally the same as abortion, has forced the British Medical Journal to defend its publication of their views.

In an article that has sparked outrage around the world and elicited death threats, Monash University's Alberto Giubilini and the University of Melbourne's Francesca Minerva say that a foetus and a newborn both lack a sense of life and aspiration.

They argue this justifies "after-birth abortion" on the proviso it is painless as the baby is not missing out on a life it cannot contemplate.

The doctors of philosophy argue in the BMJ publication Journal of Medical Ethics that one-third of infants with Down syndrome are not diagnosed in the womb, which means mothers of children with severe disabilities should have the chance to end a child's life after, as well as before, birth.

However, the pair also want the principle of killing newborns extended to healthy babies, because a mother who is unwilling to care for it outweighs an infant's right to life.

In the article, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, the authors argue: "A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human."

They also write that the practice should be called "after-birth abortion" and not "infanticide" to "emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a foetus (on which 'abortions' in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child".

"We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia."

Although the authors claim that the "moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a 'person' in a morally relevant sense", they concede it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a "person".

The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, said the article had "elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety". He said some of comments included:

"These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society."

"Right now I think these two devils in human skin need to be delivered for immediate execution under their code of 'after birth abortions' they want to commit murder – that is all it is! MURDER!!!"

"The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier"

“Alberto Giubilini looks like a muslim so I have to agree with him that all muslims should have been aborted. If abortion fails, no life at birth – just like he wants."

He defended the article, saying the arguments in the paper were not new. "The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide ... but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands."

He said that "more than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society".

The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands

wtf?
What the hell does this mean? Anywhere you'll find desperate people who do it (also cultists that sacrifice them to dark forgotten gods), why single out netherlands?

The guideline accepted by the hospital in Groningen last year states that euthanasia is allowed when the child’s medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it is best.

(btw, what's the job of a bioeticist anyway?)

Or "To play the devil's advocate, the Spartans were totally correct to murder their deformed infants".

I don't see the merit of the paper either; frankly these guys sound like real-life trolls and are now whining about how they are getting flamed.

Or "To play the devil's advocate, the Spartans were totally correct to murder their deformed infants".

In the article, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, the authors argue: "A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human."

Although the authors claim that the "moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a 'person' in a morally relevant sense", they concede it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a "person".

Besides, these bioeticists are complete morons (btw, what's the job of a bioeticist anyway?).

In The Age article, it's explicitly stated that the article had disclaimers like: "NOTE: WE DO NOT ACTUALLY SUPPORT THE IDEAS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN HERE, WE ARE JUST DEBATING THE PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS OF IT"

I bet all those nuclear war gamers are horrible people for thinking about all the possible scenarios millions of people could be killed in.

Those nuclear war gamers aren't claiming to make an ethical argument that the deaths of millions of people through nuclear war is a good thing, are they?

btw, what's the job of a bioeticist anyway?

They have the right to talk of whatever, but hell, do it discreetly, use words outside of the average idiot's 100-word vocabulary, place plenty of hypotetical nonsense and wrap it all in complex syntax to keep most ravaging idiots out.

Heck, skimming through it, the structure and language are incredibly imprecise and non-scientific

I don't see the merit of the paper either; frankly these guys sound like real-life trolls and are now whining about how they are getting flamed.

And the rational reason why termination is less preferrable post-birth than shortly before birth?

Because at this point, regardless of arguments for and against abortion, the infant does not need the mother's body to survive and is a completely independent being.

"The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands."

This is how ethicists argue. They take up a devils advocate position, and then defend it from others who try to poke holes in it. They will attack another ethicists opinion by extending the logic the other guys use outside the original case and either reduce that logic to absurdity, or generate a counter-example by which the logic used by their opponent reaches a patently abhorrent conclusion, and they then proceed to defend that abhorrent conclusion when their opponent counter-argues.

However, their response to the apparent "death threats" from THE INTERNET frankly borders on whining. The mature response would be "This is a thought experiment meant to provoke reasoned discussion from fellow peers", not whine about how they're getting death threats from THE INTERNET who aren't bioethicists.

If that's your calling, explain your calling and take the flak the profession is supposed to get; not whine about how Internet flamers want them dead. Don't enter a profession that is supposed to ask hard questions, without being willing to explain the nature of your profession and the ability to take the flak for asking the said hard question.

Moreover, what I really, really, don't like about the paper is that it attempts to try and claim that there is apparently a difference between "post-birth abortion" and "infanticide". If you wanna argue that society should kill off members of society to maintain its well-being (which is actually the core of the argument), then say so. Don't try to sugar coat it by using new lingo. There's very little use to advocate that infanticide should be a logical extension of abortion while at the same time (by their own admission) deliberately ignoring the question of "where does life/personhood start"?

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. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons.

You want to know why they did that? Because the word Infanticide has a lot of negative historical and cultural connotations that poison the well.

Have you considered why the word "infanticide" has these negative connotations? Here's a hint: because it's associated with the act of infanticide. You can call it Happy Fun Freedom Killing if you like, it won't change the fact that it's still fucking infanticide.

Besides, these bioeticists are complete morons (btw, what's the job of a bioeticist anyway?).

You know all those silly little things like: rules regarding informed consent in medical intervention and research, how we treat human and animal research subjects, use of current medication as a control when researching new drugs instead of placebo, how doctors are supposed to treat you, what are better more ethical ways to deal with organ donation, your rights and freedoms at the end of your life and pretty much every other regulation regarding what might happen to you if you ever become a patient or research subject? Bioethicists wrote them.

Because at this point (after birth), regardless of arguments for and against abortion, the infant does not need the mother's body to survive and is a completely independent being.