The debate over when life starts and when the right to life begins has been stepped up a notch with the publication of an article by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva in the Journal of Medical Ethics (http://jme.bmj.com/c...011-100411.full)

In the article, "After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?", the authors argue that:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Citing concern for parents who have to bring up children with significant disabiiities, Giubilini and Minerva state that

the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion.

Furthermore,

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise 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.

So they believe it's OK to kill the baby after it's born (infanticide) because killing it in the womb (abortion) is now deemed acceptable to society at large. But what understanding of personhood underpins this chilling conclusion?

Giubilini and Minerva argue that a person is one

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. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.

In other words, personhood and the generally assumed rights that attend to it are no longer to be seen as fundamental, but as something to be attained once the entity has indicated, to someone else's satisfaction, that she values her existence as an individual ("her own existence"). How one determines at what point one has attained this or what degree of awareness and value is acceptable is not clear. Presumably (hopefully) the authors are thinking of extreme cases where those in authority have clear and certain consensus.

Having decided that an infant is going to be such a burden of care on the family and the state, any moral qualms are eased, say Giubilini and Minerva, if one considers that "failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims." In any case, they say, there is no need for moral concern, as "when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible." In other words, if there are acceptable reasons to abort a fetus in the womb, then these reasons can be applied to killing an infant post-partum. Is this what "pro-choice" is bringing us to?

One can go on to argue about the nature and rights of "actual" personhood vis-a-vis "potential" personhood; arguments that seem to base themselves on ideas of sanctity vs utility, and hence whether personhood is "god-given" or just a social construct, but even without doing so, I find the arguments for infanticide found in this article rather frightening. Not only do I find the idea of killing an infant, for whatever reason, repugnant, but I worry about further development of the arguments underpinning the case for infanticide. For example, if personhood is not fundamental to a human being, but an attainment assessed as such by others, at what point does the "slippery slope" become even more slippery and challenge the socially determined acceptability of the infirm aged?

Well you don't have to be old to get taken off life support , which I suppose is a little different than just being old , but I would not only be one of the people you would worry about but would want the same for myself , I have no desire to stay alive with no quality of life just because someone like you thinks I should be spoon fed for as long as possible as I lay slowly dieing in my hospital bed.

Their are NUMEROUS elderly people that not only do I think should be euthanised but if I was one of them I would be really angry that no one cared enough to allow me to die with a shot of some medication.

I realsie most people think I am callous and heartless or maybe even evil ..... but you asked and thats my opinion in a nutshell

I don't think I am for forced euthanaisa however I think it should be allowed if people want it and also think in appropriate situations Doctors should reccomend and encourage it.

However to answer your question personhood was long since established for the elderly and starts when a fetus becomes a baby.

Their proposal of after birth abortion will go no place but on paper or to a court charged with murder.

I hope you realise that they are not really trying to make the case for killing people , which in the article they point out that "after birth abortion should not be limited to any age" ...... what they are trying to do is point out through their article that abortion itself is no less wrong.

The essecence of what they are saying is that it's ok to kill any person at any age for any reason as they say that afterbirth abortion should have the same paramaters ...... which are none .... as abortion

Clearly thats popostrous and absurd and the article is meant to try and make people re consider their positions on regualr abortion

I'll need to look at the article again. My understanding is that they were making a case for the logic of infanticide if one accepts that a baby is not a "person" until such time as he or she has attained a capacity to "attribute to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her".

Of course, in a philosophical journal, one can make a case for something without proposing that it be taken up in practice. Without an underpinning belief in Natural Law (theistic or otherwise) I suppose all we are left with is convention and consensus, which could under some circumstances lead to the condoning of infanticide. I don't know if the authors are really advocating a morally neutral view of infanticide for severely disabled babies, but it seems that way to me, based on their acknowledgement of the legal (and therefore, in utilitarian terms, moral) acceptance of abortion.

There are some comments on the article here: http://www.telegraph...xperts-say.html. It's obviously a very emotional topic. Perhaps, as you say, the article may alert pro-choice people to the potential implications of a view of personhood that justifies abortion - especially late-term.

They were quite specfic in saying that their principle applys to babys that are NOT disabled as well , they point out that if it would be a hardship for the mother it would also be ok ....... What they are trying to get across is that if it's ok to kill a baby for reasons XYznd Z in the womb then why is it not ok to do it out of the womb.

The reason I say what I said was is they know full well that their is no such thing as right to life in the first place , the right to life only means you have the right not to be murdered.

They are trying in a round about provocative way to make people question why it's ok to kill a fetus because of not only the desires but possible hardships of others but not an infant for the same reasons by makeing an absurd bunch of arguments.

Thats one part of what they said sure , they also went on to say it would be fine if the mother would suffer because of an adoption ! At some point you have to realise that the absurd nature of what they are proposing as "moral" is not intended to convience people of morality but to make people think why here but not there.

Thank you. I take your point that they are not applying their logic only to children with disabilities (though they start that way), but also to children who may be a burden on the mother or the state for some other reason.

I also see your point that the logic of their argument may provoke some people to reconsider their support for abortion, though I doubt that is their intention. They seem to be serious, and they point out that they are not the only philosophers who have argued in favour of infanticide in recent years (Peter Singer, the animal liberationist, is a famous case; he's been banned from lecturing in Germany for this reason).

If one adopts a purely utilitarian social philosophy and a purely materialist ontology (theory of being) it is perfectly logical and not a moral, but a legal issue, to kill beings that create social burdens. Of course, most of us dont really think that way and restrict our killing to animals, birds and fish (for food or, in the case of culling, to protect the environment) and insects that bite, etc., but this is the result of social development, possibly fed by religious taboos. In recent times, however, the legality of killing has been extended in many jurisdictions to the fetus and to those on life-support. Now there seems to be a move among utilitarian bioethicists to extend this legality to infants.

Utilitarian principles (aiming at the greatest happiness of the greatest number) are very useful and widespread in many ways (e.g. in disbursement of funds), but they do allow for injustices to be committed against minorities. Slavery, for example, would be permissible in a utilitarian regime if it resulted in the greatest happiness of the greatest number, and some people become dispensable under such a regime. In the mind of the authors of the article it would appear that burdensome infants who have not yet attained and may never attain self-awareness of the value of their lives, and, therefore, distress at losing it, are put forward as targets for dispensability.

But will those who decide that an infant will not attain self-awareness always be right? Will there be no cases where their judgement leads to the murder of a child who would in fact attain this level of personhood? Will self-interest, political pressure, bribery, corruption, intimidation, etc never be an influence in the judgement? And groupthink among the panel? Will this never occur? One of my grandsons was diagnosed during the pregnancy as having a condition that would give him a maximum of four months of life. This diagnosis was confirmed at the child's birth. The child is now three and a half years old and perfectly healthy and robust. "A miracle" said the doctors (yes, the doctors!). A misdiagnosis say I, and from a team of specialists. Doctors can and do get it wrong.

It seems to me that to most people the whole concept of "every life is precious" is a very subjective one, I confess I skimmed. So perhaps they dont mention the fact that millions of children die yearly from preventable deaths worldwide and yet this is not considered infanticide on global scale. So, if we are going to consider that these children's lives are less precious than I guess we can consider anyone that way.

And yes, I am with Mr Real Deal, old people should be given the right to die in their own way and in their own time.

What you say is true , the part you seem to be missing or leaving out to support your contention that they are serious, are the parts that are absurd and make my point ...... Do you really think they are serious when they say that they believe that a mother should be able to legaly kill her child because the stress of an adoption would make it acceptable ? Is it even a serious concept in the first place or just absurd as I contend ...... The concept they are presenting and you think is serious I am reffering to, is the concept that killing your newborn baby would have less stress on a mother than an adoption !

Most people on TV I would accuse of just being argumentative about now but I know your not like that so I ask again ..... Do you really think they are serious when they suggest that a mother killing her newborn baby would be justified because the stress of an adoption would be so much greater than a mother murdering her own baby ? Or.............. is it just an absurdity meant to ask if you killl a fetus instead of an adoption why not a baby ?

The reason I can't accept them being serious is that their argument is that it's ok to kill a baby if it causes stress on the mother but the killing of one's own baby would cause more than an adoption and any sensible person knows that .... therefore I find them to be using absurd concepts to make their real point rather than trying to sell baby killing as a stress reducer over adoption as a serious concept.

I will admit I could be wrong but I really don't think so.

It seems to me that to most people the whole concept of "every life is precious" is a very subjective one, I confess I skimmed. So perhaps they dont mention the fact that millions of children die yearly from preventable deaths worldwide and yet this is not considered infanticide on global scale. So, if we are going to consider that these children's lives are less precious than I guess we can consider anyone that way.

And yes, I am with Mr Real Deal, old people should be given the right to die in their own way and in their own time.

Well the logical extention to what you skimmed is that since they said they had no time limit on the killings and that hardship on the mother is a justification ..... I guess when your kid turns 15 and wants to go to the prom if you had to get a second job you could kill them ..... thats the part that makes it absurd , I will concede to X man that their are other parts less absurd. And parts that would make a certian amount of sence as well.

According to their philisophy pretty much anyone who EITHER becomes a burden to others or is not self aware can be wacked, he is concentrating on the parts that are somewhat arguable and not especially absurd , I am concentrationg on the entire thesis , now they sort of insinuated a few days or maybe a week and mentiond nerology and doctors but the reason this will never happen is a day turns to a week and a week into my 15 year old prom date !

Why ? Because no one in their right mind is going to put themselves in a position of being the one to decide if mom who doesn't want an adoption has a day a week or 21 years to decide to kill a human.

From the article:

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.

Mr Real Deal, I agree wholeheartedly with you that this is a pretty grotesque argument. You may well be right that in the section on adoption they're not really being serious. They seem to be just playing with ideas. However, I think, (from memory), that in some countries and states, possible stress (which could mean inconvenience) is in fact seen as a legal justification for abortion, so I guess they could just be taking this to its logical (and, in my view, absurd) extension. It would be interesting to know if Giubilini and Minerva are simply out-and-out nihilists.

Another possibility is that they are rather immature, and, in submitting the article for publication, have been inattentive to their responsibility as researchers to extend the horizons of their field. There is benefit in "playing" with ideas in appropriate situations. Debating societies do this. But I can't think of any way in which the already contentious field of ethics or civilized society has benefited from the article's publication. The editor of the journal needs to give some thought to his responsibilities too. So, too, do the peer reviewers. Freedom of speech is important, but that doesn't mean any outrageous and unconstructive set of propositions should be given the status of publication in an academic journal.

http://dailycaller.c...pology-apology/

Their is no reason that is a requirement for an abortion anyplace in America until well after pregnancy and then only in a few places ..... their is no need for any justification in America for abortion .... I want one is all the justification you need

I defenitly agree with your last sentence

I am with MrRealDeal, find it hard to believe that anyone would take it seriously. But I guess some people will say anything and some people will believe anything.

I agree with Mr RD - it's a provocative piece intended to ridicule abortion.

But if we are to allow the morning-after pill, but consider disposing of our children when they are inconvenient as murder, then we have to draw a line somewhere. I know some people draw the line somewhere between abstinence and condoms...

SC

And yes, I am with Mr Real Deal, old people should be given the right to die in their own way and in their own time.

I'd take that a step further...once you reach a certain age, the government could offer free euthanasia if the person so chooses. Win-win all around.

As for that article, are they saying newborns are not real people yet so it's OK to kill them? If so, they are nuts. I wonder if they also think toddlers are only "half-people"?

I agree with Mr RD - it's a provocative piece intended to ridicule abortion.

But if we are to allow the morning-after pill, but consider disposing of our children when they are inconvenient as murder, then we have to draw a line somewhere. I know some people draw the line somewhere between abstinence and condoms...

SC

Well, it may read as though it's a parody, but it seems the authors wrote it with serious intent.

http://blogs.bmj.com...ni-and-minerva/

Their defence of the article suggests that they are just very naive and mentally dwelling in some kind of academic la la land. It's hard to accept their supposition that only professional bioethicists would see the article and read it. Do they really think that something with the very provocative heading, "After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?" wouldn't get picked up by the media? Indeed, is such an emotive heading appropriate for a sober professional journal read only by serious philosophers and medical people? The journal's editor and peer reviewers have failed in their responsibilities in allowing the article to appear in the form it did.