After-birth abortion: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
miscategorized
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{about|the neologism used in a paper|euthanasia of newborns|child euthanasia|pregnancy abortion|abortion}}
⚫
"'''After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?'''" is a controversial<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kaczor |first1=Christopher |title=A dubious defense of ‘after-birth abortion’: A reply to Räsänen |journal=Bioethics |date=2018 |volume=32 |issue=2 |pages=132–137 |doi=10.1111/bioe.12413}}</ref> article published by Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini in ''[[Journal of Medical Ethics]]'' in 2013 (available online from 2012) arguing in favor of the permissibility of [[infanticide]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Giubilini |first1=Alberto |last2=Minerva |first2=Francesca |title=After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |date=2013 |volume=39 |issue=5 |pages=261–263 |doi=10.1136/medethics-2011-100411|doi-access=free }}</ref> The article attracted media attention<ref>{{cite news |last1=O'Brien |first1=Breda |title=Swift justice for newborns who might be a 'burden on society' |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/swift-justice-for-newborns-who-might-be-a-burden-on-society-1.474591 |access-date=12 January 2021 |work=The Irish Times |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Curtis |first1=Mary C. |title=‘After-birth abortion’: Can they be serious? |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/after-birth-abortion-can-they-be-serious/2012/03/03/gIQADgiOsR_blog.html |access-date=12 January 2021 |work=Washington Post |date=5 March 2012}}</ref> and several scholarly critiques.<ref>{{cite news |title="Liberals Are Disgusting": In Defence of the Publication of "After-Birth Abortion" {{!}} Practical Ethics |url=http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/02/%E2%80%9Cliberals-are-disgusting%E2%80%9D-in-defence-of-the-publication-of-%E2%80%9Cafter-birth-abortion%E2%80%9D/ |access-date=12 January 2021 |work=blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Biegler |first1=P. |title=Public distress as a moral consideration in after-birth abortion |journal=Monash Bioethics Review |date=2012 |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=48–51 |doi=10.1007/BF03351332|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hauskeller |first1=Michael |title=Reflections from a Troubled Stream: Giubilini and Minerva on “After-Birth Abortion” |journal=Hastings Center Report |date=July 2012 |volume=42 |issue=4 |pages=17–20 |doi=10.1002/hast.53}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wrigley |first1=Anthony |title=Limitations on personhood arguments for abortion and ‘after-birth abortion’ |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |date=May 2013 |volume=39 |issue=5 |pages=e15–e18 |doi=10.1136/medethics-2012-100958}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rini |first1=Regina A |title=Of course the baby should live: against ‘after-birth abortion’ |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |date=May 2013 |volume=39 |issue=5 |pages=353–356 |doi=10.1136/medethics-2012-100640}}</ref> According to Michael Tooley, "Very few philosophical publications, however, have evoked either more widespread attention, or emotionally more heated reactions, than this article has."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tooley |first1=Michael |title=Philosophy, critical thinking and ‘after-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’ |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |date=May 2013 |volume=39 |issue=5 |pages=266–272 |doi=10.1136/medethics-2012-100861|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Benagiano |first1=Giuseppe |last2=Landeweerd |first2=Laurens |last3=Brosens |first3=Ivo |title=“After birth” abortion: a biomedical and conceptual nonsense |journal=The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine |date=July 2013 |volume=26 |issue=11 |pages=1053–1059 |doi=10.3109/14767058.2013.779661}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=https://abortions.co.il/private-abortion/ |title= הפלה פרטית }} Wednesday, 24 November 2021 </ref>

⚫
"'''After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?'''" is a controversial<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kaczor |first1=Christopher |title=A dubious defense of ‘after-birth abortion’: A reply to Räsänen |journal=Bioethics |date=2018 |volume=32 |issue=2 |pages=132–137 |doi=10.1111/bioe.12413}}</ref> article published by Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini in ''[[Journal of Medical Ethics]]'' in 2013 (available online from 2012) arguing to call [[child euthanasia]] "after-birth abortion" and highlighting similarities between abortion and euthanasia.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Giubilini |first1=Alberto |last2=Minerva |first2=Francesca |title=After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |date=2013 |volume=39 |issue=5 |pages=261–263 |doi=10.1136/medethics-2011-100411|doi-access=free }}</ref> The article attracted media attention<ref>{{cite news |last1=O'Brien |first1=Breda |title=Swift justice for newborns who might be a 'burden on society' |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/swift-justice-for-newborns-who-might-be-a-burden-on-society-1.474591 |access-date=12 January 2021 |work=The Irish Times |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Curtis |first1=Mary C. |title=‘After-birth abortion’: Can they be serious? |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/after-birth-abortion-can-they-be-serious/2012/03/03/gIQADgiOsR_blog.html |access-date=12 January 2021 |work=Washington Post |date=5 March 2012}}</ref> and several scholarly critiques.<ref>{{cite news |title="Liberals Are Disgusting": In Defence of the Publication of "After-Birth Abortion" {{!}} Practical Ethics |url=http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/02/%E2%80%9Cliberals-are-disgusting%E2%80%9D-in-defence-of-the-publication-of-%E2%80%9Cafter-birth-abortion%E2%80%9D/ |access-date=12 January 2021 |work=blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Biegler |first1=P. |title=Public distress as a moral consideration in after-birth abortion |journal=Monash Bioethics Review |date=2012 |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=48–51 |doi=10.1007/BF03351332|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hauskeller |first1=Michael |title=Reflections from a Troubled Stream: Giubilini and Minerva on “After-Birth Abortion” |journal=Hastings Center Report |date=July 2012 |volume=42 |issue=4 |pages=17–20 |doi=10.1002/hast.53}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wrigley |first1=Anthony |title=Limitations on personhood arguments for abortion and ‘after-birth abortion’ |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |date=May 2013 |volume=39 |issue=5 |pages=e15–e18 |doi=10.1136/medethics-2012-100958}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rini |first1=Regina A |title=Of course the baby should live: against ‘after-birth abortion’ |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |date=May 2013 |volume=39 |issue=5 |pages=353–356 |doi=10.1136/medethics-2012-100640}}</ref> According to Michael Tooley, "Very few philosophical publications, however, have evoked either more widespread attention, or emotionally more heated reactions, than this article has."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tooley |first1=Michael |title=Philosophy, critical thinking and ‘after-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’ |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |date=May 2013 |volume=39 |issue=5 |pages=266–272 |doi=10.1136/medethics-2012-100861|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Benagiano |first1=Giuseppe |last2=Landeweerd |first2=Laurens |last3=Brosens |first3=Ivo |title=“After birth” abortion: a biomedical and conceptual nonsense |journal=The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine |date=July 2013 |volume=26 |issue=11 |pages=1053–1059 |doi=10.3109/14767058.2013.779661}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=https://abortions.co.il/private-abortion/ |title= הפלה פרטית }} Wednesday, 24 November 2021 </ref>


The argument of the article is as follows:
The argument of the article is as follows:
# Abortion is justified because of the moral status of foetuses (their shared status of 'potential persons' is not morally relevant)
# Abortion is justified because of the moral status of foetuses (their shared status of 'potential persons' is not morally relevant)
# Abortion is justified when the foetus has severe abnormalities or would be an intolerable burden to its mother/family (at least when adoption is not a viable option due to not being in the best interests of actual persons)
# Abortion is justified when the foetus has severe abnormalities or would be an intolerable burden to its mother/family (at least when adoption is not a viable option due to not being in the best interests of actual persons)
# Newborns have the same moral status as foetuses (there are no morally relevant differences between them)
# Newborns have the same moral status as foetuses (there are no morally relevant differences between them), if they suffer unbearably
# Newborns may be born with severe abnormalities (that cannot always be diagnosed before birth) and can be an intolerable burden on their mother/family (including when circumstances change after birth)
# Newborns may be born with severe abnormalities (that cannot always be diagnosed before birth) and can be an intolerable burden on their mother/family (including when circumstances change after birth)
# Therefore, post-birth abortion (of newborns) is justified
# Therefore, "after-birth abortion" (euthanasia of newborns) can be justified in some circumstances

==See also==
* [[Neonaticide]]


==References==
==References==
Line 16: Line 15:
[[Category:2012 controversies]]
[[Category:2012 controversies]]
[[Category:2013 controversies]]
[[Category:2013 controversies]]
[[Category:Infanticide]]
[[Category:Bioethics]]
[[Category:Bioethics]]
[[Category:Academic journal articles]]
[[Category:Academic journal articles]]

Revision as of 14:46, 30 January 2022

This article is about the neologism used in a paper. For euthanasia of newborns, see child euthanasia. For pregnancy abortion, see abortion.

"After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" is a controversial[1] article published by Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini in Journal of Medical Ethics in 2013 (available online from 2012) arguing to call child euthanasia "after-birth abortion" and highlighting similarities between abortion and euthanasia.[2] The article attracted media attention[3][4] and several scholarly critiques.[5][6][7][8][9] According to Michael Tooley, "Very few philosophical publications, however, have evoked either more widespread attention, or emotionally more heated reactions, than this article has."[10][11][12]

The argument of the article is as follows:

  1. Abortion is justified because of the moral status of foetuses (their shared status of 'potential persons' is not morally relevant)
  2. Abortion is justified when the foetus has severe abnormalities or would be an intolerable burden to its mother/family (at least when adoption is not a viable option due to not being in the best interests of actual persons)
  3. Newborns have the same moral status as foetuses (there are no morally relevant differences between them), if they suffer unbearably
  4. Newborns may be born with severe abnormalities (that cannot always be diagnosed before birth) and can be an intolerable burden on their mother/family (including when circumstances change after birth)
  5. Therefore, "after-birth abortion" (euthanasia of newborns) can be justified in some circumstances

References

  1. ^ Kaczor, Christopher (2018). "A dubious defense of 'after-birth abortion': A reply to Räsänen". Bioethics. 32 (2): 132–137. doi:10.1111/bioe.12413.
  2. ^ Giubilini, Alberto; Minerva, Francesca (2013). "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?". Journal of Medical Ethics. 39 (5): 261–263. doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411.
  3. ^ O'Brien, Breda. "Swift justice for newborns who might be a 'burden on society'". The Irish Times. Retrieved 12 January 2021.
  4. ^ Curtis, Mary C. (5 March 2012). "'After-birth abortion': Can they be serious?". Washington Post. Retrieved 12 January 2021.
  5. ^ ""Liberals Are Disgusting": In Defence of the Publication of "After-Birth Abortion" | Practical Ethics". blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk. Retrieved 12 January 2021.
  6. ^ Biegler, P. (2012). "Public distress as a moral consideration in after-birth abortion". Monash Bioethics Review. 30 (1): 48–51. doi:10.1007/BF03351332.
  7. ^ Hauskeller, Michael (July 2012). "Reflections from a Troubled Stream: Giubilini and Minerva on "After-Birth Abortion"". Hastings Center Report. 42 (4): 17–20. doi:10.1002/hast.53.
  8. ^ Wrigley, Anthony (May 2013). "Limitations on personhood arguments for abortion and 'after-birth abortion'". Journal of Medical Ethics. 39 (5): e15–e18. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100958.
  9. ^ Rini, Regina A (May 2013). "Of course the baby should live: against 'after-birth abortion'". Journal of Medical Ethics. 39 (5): 353–356. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100640.
  10. ^ Tooley, Michael (May 2013). "Philosophy, critical thinking and 'after-birth abortion: why should the baby live?'". Journal of Medical Ethics. 39 (5): 266–272. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100861.
  11. ^ Benagiano, Giuseppe; Landeweerd, Laurens; Brosens, Ivo (July 2013). ""After birth" abortion: a biomedical and conceptual nonsense". The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 26 (11): 1053–1059. doi:10.3109/14767058.2013.779661.
  12. ^ "הפלה פרטית". Wednesday, 24 November 2021
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=After-birth_abortion&oldid=1068863032"