"Ethicists argue for the killing of newborn babies as a logical extension of abortion."

[Lucille]

LRC: You Knew It Was Coming (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/106580.html)


A paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible, even if the baby is perfectly healthy, in a shocking example of how the medical establishment is still dominated by a eugenicist mindset.

The paper is authored by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

“The fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant,” the authors claim, arguing that adoption is not a reasonable counter-argument because the parents of the baby might be economically or psychologically burdened the process and the mother may “suffer psychological distress”. How the mother could not also “suffer psychological distress” by having her newborn baby killed is not explained.
[...]
Matthew Archbold of the National Catholic Register explains how the legalization of infanticide, killing newborn babies, is the logical conclusion of the starting point of the argument, which is that the fetus is not human and has no right to live.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Just stupid.

The opposing side of this argument also makes mistakes, in that they assign positive rights to a group of people.

Surely, that both sides are errant should signal that the argument itself is flawed and based on a false premise.

[Yieu]

Dr. Paul says "there is no difference between aborting one minute before birth or one minute after birth" and these guys say "Yeah, so lets kill both!"

This argument could be extended to infinity and be used to kill those the government finds undesirable.

[James Madison]

The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

Hmmmmm. Where have I heard this before? Something about certain ethnic groups being declared non-human. Sure sounds familiar...anyone wanna help me out?

[eduardo89]

Any argument for abortion also fits perfectly as an argument for infanticide.

[Yieu]

Any argument for abortion also fits perfectly as an argument for infanticide.

This is true. And one could argue that it could be extended to an argument for killing at ever-increasing ages without much effort.

[Cabal]

Like it or not, this does seem to be a conclusion which logically follows from the pro-choice position (at least with regard to healthy fetuses vs. healthy newborns). Fortunately enough, it illustrates how morally bankrupt and absurd such a position is.

[BuddyRey]

Isn't it odd how "bio-ethicists" rarely have a grasp on ethics at all?

[Sola_Fide]

Isn't it odd how "bio-ethicists" rarely have a grasp on ethics at all?

The religion of science will be the cause of more murder, slavery, and misery than all of the world religions that have come before it.

[Lucille]

This is true. And one could argue that it could be extended to an argument for killing at ever-increasing ages without much effort.


The religion of science will be the cause of more murder, slavery, and misery than all of the world religions that have come before it.

Flashback: Discover declares “The End of Morality” (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?304271-Discover-declares-%E2%80%9CThe-End-of-Morality%E2%80%9D)


As an aside, the other day I read an essay (http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2011/07/gold-daily-and-silver-weekly-charts_20.html) in a recent issue of Discover Magazine called, The End of Morality. I also found this commentary (http://www.tothesource.org/7_6_2011/7_6_2011_printer.htm) on it.

In this article, which promotes the triumph of scientific reason, utilitarianism, over what it contends are mere emotions, holdovers from history, it was put forward that it makes rational economic sense to kill one healthy person and harvest their organs, in order to provide them to five other people who can then live a higher quality of life, as an increase of goodness on the whole. The revulsion that one feels at murder is an unthinking instinct which can be overcome by higher thinking, the power of the will.

And it held this out as the higher 'good' in the new scientific morality, freed of the restraints of the mere instinct to preserve innocent life.


"You have these gut reactions and they feel authoritative, like the voice of God or your conscience. But these instincts are not commands from a higher power. They are just emotions hardwired into the brain as we evolved."

The logical extensions of such reasoning should be perfectly obvious to anyone with a sense of history.

And one does not even have to kill them to put them to the good service of the State, and those predestined for a higher quality of life, the übermenschen. At least, not in the beginning.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[dannno]

Any argument for abortion also fits perfectly as an argument for infanticide.

Not really.

[Yieu]

Flashback: Discover declares “The End of Morality” (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?304271-Discover-declares-%E2%80%9CThe-End-of-Morality%E2%80%9D)

Really good point tying that in! That argument is along the same lines.

[presence]

EDIT TO ADD:
Just found similar thread here: Moderator Please Move
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363908

---------------------------------

Ethicists Argue Killing HEALTHY, NORMAL, and VIABLE Newborn Babies Should Be Allowed

Shocking reminder that eugenicist beliefs underpin medical establishment
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ethicists-argue-killing-newborn-babies-should-be-allowed.html
Paul Joseph Watson - Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, February 28, 2012

The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health,
“killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is,
including cases where the newborn is
not disabled.”

--------------------------

I can't comment. But if you wish to yourself, perhaps you should address it here:

Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au

sick,

presence

For sake of digital preservation,
FULL TEXT FOLLOWS:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Alberto Giubilini (http://jme.bmj.com/search?author1=Alberto+Giubilini&sortspec=date&submit=Submit)1 (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#aff-1),2 (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#aff-2),
Francesca Minerva (http://jme.bmj.com/search?author1=Francesca+Minerva&sortspec=date&submit=Submit)3 (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#aff-3),4 (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#aff-4)

+ (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#) Author Affiliations


1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK



Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au



Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.



Received 25 November 2011
Revised 26 January 2012
Accepted 27 January 2012
Published Online First 23 February 2012


Abstract

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.

Introduction

Severe abnormalities of the fetus and risks for the physical and/or psychological health of the woman are often cited as valid reasons for abortion. Sometimes the two reasons are connected, such as when a woman claims that a disabled child would represent a risk to her mental health. However, having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children,1 (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#ref-1) regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself.
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.

Such an issue arises, for example, when an abnormality has not been detected during pregnancy or occurs during delivery. Perinatal asphyxia, for instance, may cause severe brain damage and result in severe mental and/or physical impairments comparable with those for which a woman could request an abortion. Moreover, abnormalities are not always, or cannot always be, diagnosed through prenatal screening even if they have a genetic origin. This is more likely to happen when the disease is not hereditary but is the result of genetic mutations occurring in the gametes of a healthy parent. One example is the case of Treacher-Collins syndrome (TCS), a condition that affects 1 in every 10 000 births causing facial deformity and related physiological failures, in particular potentially life-threatening respiratory problems. Usually those affected by TCS are not mentally impaired and they are therefore fully aware of their condition, of being different from other people and of all the problems their pathology entails. Many parents would choose to have an abortion if they find out, through genetic prenatal testing, that their fetus is affected by TCS. However, genetic prenatal tests for TCS are usually taken only if there is a family history of the disease. Sometimes, though, the disease is caused by a gene mutation that intervenes in the gametes of a healthy member of the couple. Moreover, tests for TCS are quite expensive and it takes several weeks to get the result. Considering that it is a very rare pathology, we can understand why women are not usually tested for this disorder.

However, such rare and severe pathologies are not the only ones that are likely to remain undetected until delivery; even more common congenital diseases that women are usually tested for could fail to be detected. An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down's syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing.2 (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#ref-2) This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down's syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. Once these children are born, there is no choice for the parents but to keep the child, which sometimes is exactly what they would not have done if the disease had been diagnosed before birth.

Abortion and after-birth abortion

Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers3 (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#ref-3) for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.

Also medical professionals have recognised the need for guidelines about cases in which death seems to be in the best interest of the child. In The Netherlands, for instance, the Groningen Protocol (2002) allows to actively terminate the life of ‘infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering’.4 (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#ref-4)

Although it is reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is against the best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down's syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’.3 (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#ref-3) But, in fact, people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.5 (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#ref-5)

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, 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. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

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. Therefore, 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.

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. However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.

There are two reasons which, taken together, justify this claim:


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.
It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.

We are going to justify these two points in the following two sections.

The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent

The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

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. 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. 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.

Our point here is that, although it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a ‘person’, a necessary condition for a subject to have a right to X is that she is harmed by a decision to deprive her of X. There are many ways in which an individual can be harmed, and not all of them require that she values or is even aware of what she is deprived of. A person might be ‘harmed’ when someone steals from her the winning lottery ticket even if she will never find out that her ticket was the winning one. Or a person might be ‘harmed’ if something were done to her at the stage of fetus which affects for the worse her quality of life as a person (eg, her mother took drugs during pregnancy), even if she is not aware of it. However, in such cases we are talking about a person who is at least in the condition to value the different situation she would have found herself in if she had not been harmed. And such a condition depends on the level of her mental development,6 (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#ref-6) which in turn determines whether or not she is a ‘person’.

Those who are only capable of experiencing pain and pleasure (like perhaps fetuses and certainly newborns) have a right not to be inflicted pain. If, in addition to experiencing pain and pleasure, an individual is capable of making any aims (like actual human and non-human persons), she is harmed if she is prevented from accomplishing her aims by being killed. Now, hardly can a newborn be said to have aims, as the future we imagine for it is merely a projection of our minds on its potential lives. It might start having expectations and develop a minimum level of self-awareness at a very early stage, but not in the first days or few weeks after birth. On the other hand, not only aims but also well-developed plans are concepts that certainly apply to those people (parents, siblings, society) who could be negatively or positively affected by the birth of that child. Therefore, the rights and interests of the actual people involved should represent the prevailing consideration in a decision about abortion and after-birth abortion.

It is true that a particular moral status can be attached to a non-person by virtue of the value an actual person (eg, the mother) attributes to it. However, this ‘subjective’ account of the moral status of a newborn does not debunk our previous argument. Let us imagine that a woman is pregnant with two identical twins who are affected by genetic disorders. In order to cure one of the embryos the woman is given the option to use the other twin to develop a therapy. If she agrees, she attributes to the first embryo the status of ‘future child’ and to the other one the status of a mere means to cure the ‘future child’. However, the different moral status does not spring from the fact that the first one is a ‘person’ and the other is not, which would be nonsense, given that they are identical. Rather, the different moral statuses only depends on the particular value the woman projects on them. However, such a projection is exactly what does not occur when a newborn becomes a burden to its family.

The fetus and the newborn are potential persons

Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life.

It might be claimed that someone is harmed because she is prevented from becoming a person capable of appreciating her own being alive. Thus, for example, one might say that we would have been harmed if our mothers had chosen to have an abortion while they were pregnant with us7 (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#ref-7) or if they had killed us as soon as we were born. However, whereas you can benefit someone by bringing her into existence (if her life is worth living), it makes no sense to say that someone is harmed by being prevented from becoming an actual person. The reason is that, by virtue of our definition of the concept of ‘harm’ in the previous section, in order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm.

If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. So, if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed, had our parents decided to kill us when we were fetuses or newborns, our answer is ‘no’, because they would have harmed someone who does not exist (the ‘us’ whom you are asking the question), which means no one. And if no one is harmed, then no harm occurred.

A consequence of this position is that the interests of actual people over-ride the interest of merely potential people to become actual ones. This does not mean that the interests of actual people always over-ride any right of future generations, as we should certainly consider the well-being of people who will inhabit the planet in the future. Our focus is on the right to become a particular person, and not on the right to have a good life once someone will have started to be a person. In other words, we are talking about particular individuals who might or might not become particular persons depending on our choice, and not about those who will certainly exist in the future but whose identity does not depend on what we choose now.

The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends,8 (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#ref-8) 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. Actual people's well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of. Sometimes this situation can be prevented through an abortion, but in some other cases this is not possible. In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. We might still have moral duties towards future generations in spite of these future people not existing yet. But because we take it for granted that such people will exist (whoever they will be), we must treat them as actual persons of the future. This argument, however, does not apply to this particular newborn or infant, because we are not justified in taking it for granted that she will exist as a person in the future. Whether she will exist is exactly what our choice is about.

Adoption as an alternative to after-birth abortion?

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 (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#ref-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 (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#ref-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 (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#ref-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.

Conclusions

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.

Two considerations need to be added. First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.
Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Professor Sergio Bartolommei, University of Pisa, who read an early draft of this paper and gave us very helpful comments. The responsibility for the content remains with the authors.

Footnotes

Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.


References

↵ (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#xref-ref-1-1) Abortion Act. London: Stationery Office, 1967.
↵ (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#xref-ref-2-1) European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies. EUROCAT Database. http://www.eurocat-network.eu/PRENATALSCREENINGAndDIAGNOSIS/PrenatalDetectionRates (accessed 11 Nov 2011). (data uploaded 27/10/2011).
↵ (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#xref-ref-3-1)

Kuhse H,
Singer P

. Should the Baby live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985:143.
↵ (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#xref-ref-4-1)

Verhagen E,
Sauer P

. The groningen protocol—euthanasia in severely Ill newborns. N Engl J Med 2005;10:959–62.
↵ (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#xref-ref-5-1)

Alderson P

. Down's Syndrome: cost, quality and the value of life. Soc Sci Med 2001;5:627–38.
↵ (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#xref-ref-6-1)

Tooley M

. Abortion and infanticide. Philos Public Aff 1972;1:37–65.
↵ (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#xref-ref-7-1)

Hare RM



Hare RM

. Abortion and the golden rule. In: Hare RM, ed. Essays on Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993:147–67.
↵ (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#xref-ref-8-1)

Hare RM



Hare RM

. A Kantian approach to abortion. In: Hare RM, ed. Essays on Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993:168–84.
↵ (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#xref-ref-9-1)

Hare RM



Hare RM

. The abnormal child. Moral dilemmas of doctors and parents. In: Hare RM, ed. Essays on Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993:185–91.
↵ (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#xref-ref-10-1)

Condon J

. Psychological disability in women who relinquish a baby for adoption. Med J Aust 1986;144:117–19.
[Medline] (http://jme.bmj.com/external-ref?access_num=3945198&link_type=MED)[Web of Science] (http://jme.bmj.com/external-ref?access_num=A1986AYV9700005&link_type=ISI)
↵ (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#xref-ref-11-1)

Robinson E

. Grief associated with the loss of children to adoption. In: Separation, reunion, reconciliation: Proceedings from The Sixth Australian Conference on Adoption. Stones Corner, Brisbane: Benson J, for Committee of the Conference, 1997:268–93, 278.

[NoOneButPaul]

The paper is authored by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

The first question anyone should ask is who is he and why do we care what he thinks?

People are acting like this is a law now or something, it's just something some idiot wrote in a paper on the other side of the globe. Who cares?

[Lishy]

Da hell? So they're extending abortion to newborns? Why is that necessary? WHY!?

[Yieu]

The first question anyone should ask is who is he and why do we care what he thinks?

People are acting like this is a law now or something, it's just something some idiot wrote in a paper on the other side of the globe. Who cares?

It will be viewed by many as professional because it was published in a medical journal. To some people, that gives weight to things.

[Sola_Fide]

The philosophy of liberty is pro-life. There is no way around this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363319-Being-Pro-Life-Is-Necessary-To-Defend-Liberty-by-Dr.-Ron-Paul&highlight=pro-life+liberty

[Origanalist]

The first question anyone should ask is who is he and why do we care what he thinks?

People are acting like this is a law now or something, it's just something some idiot wrote in a paper on the other side of the globe. Who cares?

That's like saying why should you care what new regulations are being imposed in California.

[eduardo89]

Da hell? So they're extending abortion to newborns? Why is that necessary? WHY!?

When is abortion ever necessary?

[PaulConventionWV]

Just stupid.

The opposing side of this argument also makes mistakes, in that they assign positive rights to a group of people.

Surely, that both sides are errant should signal that the argument itself is flawed and based on a false premise.

Uh, what do you mean?

[PaulConventionWV]

The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

Hmmmmm. Where have I heard this before? Something about certain ethnic groups being declared non-human. Sure sounds familiar...anyone wanna help me out?

Basically everyone who wasn't a white European.

[whoisjohngalt]

I'm pretty sure this is satire, in the vein of a Modest Proposal by Swift. Even if it isn't, it works as such by pointing out that using birth as the line of demarcation is completely arbitrary.

[PaulConventionWV]

The first question anyone should ask is who is he and why do we care what he thinks?

People are acting like this is a law now or something, it's just something some idiot wrote in a paper on the other side of the globe. Who cares?

Because his logic is sound. If not, point out the flaws. You don't have to be "somebody" in order to have a valid opinion. That is the kind of elitism that spawns authoritarianism.

[Yieu]

I'm pretty sure this is satire, in the vein of a Modest Proposal by Swift. Even if it isn't, it works as such by pointing out that using birth as the line of demarcation is completely arbitrary.

It is not satire. It was published in a medical journal on ethics.

Yes, there are actually people that think like the author, as hard as that is to believe. It is shocking, but they exist.

[Origanalist]

Originally Posted by eduardo89
Any argument for abortion also fits perfectly as an argument for infanticide.



Not really.

Would you care to elaborate? It seems to me that most of the reasons used for abortion could be used on a newborn.

After all, it's still not viable if left on it's own.

[Revolution9]

The authors argue that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

Hmmmmm. Where have I heard this before? Something about certain ethnic groups being declared non-human. Sure sounds familiar...anyone wanna help me out?

Gentiles?

Rev9

[Revolution9]

When is abortion ever necessary?

Are post facto decisions allowed?

Rev9

[The Free Hornet]

Like it or not, this does seem to be a conclusion which logically follows from the pro-choice position (at least with regard to healthy fetuses vs. healthy newborns). Fortunately enough, it illustrates how morally bankrupt and absurd such a position is.

Wait a minute! You are saying it is the same thing but only "with regard to healthy fetuses vs. healthy newborns"? Is this a newborn with the sniffles or a fetus with 47 chromosomes? There is a reason so many in one crowd or the other display extremist and absolutist tendancies.

This Aussie is a crackpot and it speaks little of either side of the debate here.

Here is my analogy. A mother's womb is like China. In China, I believe murder is wrong but I do not believe it is our government's responsiblity to stop murder in China. It is too far away, context is lacking, our moral authority is not clearly present, the Chinese are better equipped to handle this than the US govevernment (however much I distrust the Chinese), etc, etc. Even though there are clearcut cases where murder is wrong in China - and we would be morally right to intervene - I see staying out as the lesser evil.

We respect borders for a reason and there is a clear border between inside another human being and outside that human being.

It is the same with a mother's womb: we lack jurisdiction, the mother has the greatest interest in both parties, her judgement should be respected, Doctors are better suited to give advice than the police and Judges, outlawing behaviors of this sort only drives them underground, and nothing will stop the mother from taking actions that would result in miscarriage or worse (for society).

What is the overlap between people clamoring for Obama's birth certificate and those seeking to eliminate the moral distinction between birth and pre-birth? Logically, they should not care where he was born as exiting another human being is a pointless distinction. The so-called Pro-Life crowd wants to reduce or eliminate this distinction. This kook down under wants to eliminate the distinction. I do not. I like fences. Fences make good neighbors. When baby Pablo crawls over that fence, then he is deserving of my protection. Until then, it is not my business (unless I was the father or some suitably close relation with a clear interest).

I don't want a government big enough or nosy enough to concern itself with abortion. Yes, abortion is wrong and distasteful (generally - *I* would not want to bring a severely disadvantaged child into this world nor would I ask *you* to pay for it if I did).

It is sickening that some would suggest my position is the same as this Aussies kook. I have less in common with him - the Pro-Life crowd has more (IMO).

[Origanalist]

It is not satire. It was published in a medical journal on ethics.

Yes, there are actually people that think like the author, as hard as that is to believe. It is shocking, but they exist.


Dr. Paul says "there is no difference between aborting one minute before birth or one minute after birth" and these guys say "Yeah, so lets kill both!"

This argument could be extended to infinity and be used to kill those the government finds undesirable.

Indeed it could, and has

[Cabal]

Wait what?

I'm saying that the often-used pro-choice argument in favor of abortion, placing the mother's rights above that of the fetus, has just been extrapolated to arrive at its logically consistent end here; which, in effect, demonstrates the lack of validity for that argument.

It's a matter of property. Pro-choicers suggest that since the mother has a right to her property (body) which shouldn't be violated, she has the 'right to abort'. But a newborn baby also infringes on the mother's property requiring both attention from the mother and property of the mother to survive. Thus, if it is acceptable for a mother to abort due to a fetus supposedly violating her property (body); then in order to be logically consistent it must also be acceptable for newborns to be killed for violating her property (body, home, etc.).

It is self-evident that the latter argument is absurd, therefore the former argument must also be absurd as a matter of logical consistency.

This is my take on it, anyhow.

[Origanalist]

Wow, that was some convoluted schit Free Hornet.

[Revolution9]

Killing authors of papers like this is justified on their grounds as adding nothing worthwhile to the equation. Frikkin' Mengele wannabes.

Rev9

[NidStyles]

So this brings me to ask, when is the arbitrary line drawn at when we can abort according to this guy? Is he within this arbitrary line, or is it too late to abort him?

[Jtorsella]

Of course it's just as ethical. Both are horribly disgusting murders.

[asurfaholic]

I wish we could fast forward a few years so it is acceptale for me to abort some people I know...

Killing babies is still kilin babies, whether they are in the womb or in the crib. If we are going to give women the right to kill an inconvenient baby, then I should be allowed to kill an inconvenient neighbor/theif.

[The Free Hornet]

Wait what?

I'm saying that the often-used pro-choice argument in favor of abortion, placing the mother's rights above that of the fetus, has just been extrapolated to arrive at its logically consistent end here; which, in effect, demonstrates the lack of validity for that argument.

You abuse that argument, as does the Aussie kook. The government has no right to interfere in your life. The question arises at what point do we acknowledge and protect another individual. Birth is one divider. I could live with something akin to viability or some other late-term metric. However, both of these choices put the government too close to the womb and our personal lives. They shouldn't have reason to inquire why someone miscarried at six months or if it was really seven months and now they can prosecute under various laws.

I'm surprised at how much faith - as it is not based on reason - there is in government to solve this problem. Per Reagan:


The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

How is this forgotten among the pro-government-intervention-in-our-lives populace?



It's a matter of property. Pro-choicers suggest that since the mother has a right to her property (body) which shouldn't be violated, she has the 'right to abort'.

The so-called pro-choice crowd is anything but. We know where they stand with regards to taxes, drugs, overseas wars, debt, excessive regulations. It is not choice that they are defending. In particular, when they ask for me to pay for it. This isn't an argument with two sides. Walking from one camp does not put you in the other.


But a newborn baby also infringes on the mother's property requiring both attention from the mother and property of the mother to survive. Thus, if it is acceptable for a mother to abort due to a fetus supposedly violating her property (body); then in order to be logically consistent it must also be acceptable for newborns to be killed for violating her property (body, home, etc.).

How can you twist your mind to put forth this argument? The mother is free to drop the baby off at any church, hospital, police station, orphanage, relative's house, Newt's child labor camp, et cetera. These options do not exist before birth. All are available after birth. There is no property conflict with her home or body at that point. Again, how did you twist yourself to think this? Yes, I know you don't believe it but you have to be moronic think this argument holds any weight.


It is self-evident that the latter argument is absurd, therefore the former argument must also be absurd as a matter of logical consistency.

This is my take on it, anyhow.

You are setting up strawmen to knock them down. I want to know how people who don't trust the government to get most anything right suddenly think they ought to be intimately involved with our lives.

Who thinks we can solve problems so easily by passing laws?

Where is the argument for government intervention in our lives? Who pays the police, medical examiners, judges, sequesters the juries, and funds the prisons?

I want a small government.

[Cabal]

Where in my post did I mention anything about government?

You're attacking a straw man.

You may want to take a moment to read my signature and perhaps realize who you're talking to before you make another fallacious assumption.

[The Free Hornet]

Where in my post did I mention anything about government?

You're attacking a straw man.

You may want to take a moment to read my signature and perhaps realize who you're talking to before you make another fallacious assumption.

If you don't want me to make fallacious assumptions, you might want to refrain from asking me to make inferences based on a sig.

As to "who you're talking to", you are free to tell me. I can't think of significant author or philosopher who hasn't taken conflicting points of view or evolved their position over time. I'm not going to infer much based on a quote in a sig.

Regarding government, I mostly spoke my own opinions on the matter: "I don't want a government big enough or nosy enough to concern itself with abortion" and "I want a small government.". If you want something different, I don't mind being corrected if I incorrectly inferred your position. Maybe you are debunking a bad argument on the "pro-choice" side or playing devil's advocate.

[Cabal]

Well, aside the fact from the two of us, you're the only one who has mentioned government... If that wasn't enough, what my sig blatantly and obviously suggests is that I'm an anarchist. I want less than small government; I want no government at all. So the idea that I'm arguing for any sort of government regulation of anything is absurd, quite frankly.

[PierzStyx]

Any argument for abortion also fits perfectly as an argument for infanticide.

You are exactly right. It also fits any excuse to kill the physically and mentally handicapped of any age.

[NoOneButPaul]

That's like saying why should you care what new regulations are being imposed in California.

No it isnt. This guy could be a total quack we don't have any clue and everyone around here is acting like he's the Surgeon General or something.

[NoOneButPaul]

It will be viewed by many as professional because it was published in a medical journal. To some people, that gives weight to things.

To some people? What people? This is the whole point i'm trying to make... this guy could be known as a huge quack in terms of medical science. We don't have any idea...

Everyone is acting like this is a huge deal but we have no idea if it is or isn't. There are doctors that think all sorts of crazy shit so because one of them wrote something in a medical journal halfway across the world it's a big deal?

Does this somehow negate the 99% of doctors who say killing newborns is batshit crazy? No...

This isn't news, it's fear propaganda.

[Sentient Void]

What? Huh? This logic is *absurd* and I'm surprised no one has debunked it yet in this thread.

Based on the logical argument of property rights (the property right of self-ownership for the money, having total dominion over her body), it does not follow that if one can abort a fetus while *in the body of the mother* (against her will) that they can then kill their children/infants or kill children/infants in general when outside of the mother's body.

That's like saying, "Because I have the right to force someone off of my property due to them trespassing, that I can then go out and find someone outside of my property and kill them."

Absurd. Simply absurd.

And a completely dishonest strawman.

[awake]

It's truly uplifting ( not) to see ethics and the justification for the arbitrary taking of human life in the same sentence. Stories like these simply point out that the true battleground of mankind is not in the physical sense, it is in the realm of ideas - good and evil.

[Dr.3D]

I dunno.... when one of my sons said, "I didn't ask to be born." I had to ask him if he would like me to take back my decision to have him born. Of course he knows I can't, so he uses his cute little "I didn't ask to be born." as an excuse to be an ass hole. Perhaps someday, he will be grateful he was born, but as for now.... I can't help feeling like perhaps I made a mistake.

Some people feel like the world owes them a living.... perhaps my son is a Democrat.

[Origanalist]

What is absurd is comparing forcing someone off your property to killing your child. And it was only there against her will if she was raped.

Actions have consequences, with liberty comes responsibility.

[Origanalist]

No it isnt. This guy could be a total quack we don't have any clue and everyone around here is acting like he's the Surgeon General or something.


This is called The Journal of Medical Ethics
An international peer-reviewed journal for health professionals and researchers in medical ethics
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract

You think the very fact this would be published is not significant?

[Sentient Void]

What is absurd is comparing forcing someone off your property to killing your child. And it was only there against her will if she was raped.

Actions have consequences, with liberty comes responsibility.

It's not absurd. All rights are property rights. The analogy is logically coherent *for the purposes of argument*.

You're not getting it. Regardless of if the *sex* was consensual, a fetus developing *may* or *may not* be desired by the mother. It does not follow that because sex was consensual, that the woman *wanted* to have a child. Or do you *really* believe that everyone, always, *only* has sex for the purposes of having children, and it was a desired specific before they engage in sex?

The relationship between a mother and a fetus is inherently a voluntary one - like any other relationship. You have *no right* to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body - and you have *no right* to enslave her to your wishes, that of the state, or the fetus - which is what you are advocating.

The moment a woman deems a fetus to be absolutely unwanted, it becomes a violator of her person and property. To force her to work, eat, etc for the sake of another, against her will - *is slavery* and inherently anti-liberty. Regardless of whether the one who wants or needs someone else to work on their behalf will die or not.

Your logic of saying because someone will die if we don't force others to work for them has a logical implication of advocating for socialism.

You either believe in self-ownership and liberty, or you don't.

[Kluge]

I dunno.... when one of my sons said, "I didn't ask to be born." I had to ask him if he would like me to take back my decision to have him born. Of course he knows I can't, so he uses his cute little "I didn't ask to be born." as an excuse to be an ass hole. Perhaps someday, he will be grateful he was born, but as for now.... I can't help feeling like perhaps I made a mistake.

Some people feel like the world owes them a living.... perhaps my son is a Democrat.

I hope he comes around and/or you do as well. (Always two sides to a story and all that...)

I was such a pain in the ass that when my dad said "We brought you in to this world, and we can take you out!" I just responded "Not in the same way, I hope."

Strangely, my parents never hit me.

[Sentient Void]

Do we even need to bring up the consequential argument against abortion prohibition. Same as the result of any form of prohibition. Black-market abortions. Self-abortions. Alleyway abortions. Increased crime. Empowering and enriching criminals. And on, and on. Same thing that has happened with prohibiting drugs, alcohol, prostitution, etc.

Prohibition doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

You ever hear about what happened in Chile when they tried to blanket-ban abortions?

[Yieu]

Who said anything about prohibition? We were talking about ethics.

[Origanalist]

Oh I get it just fine. Any person old enough to have consensual sex is old enough to know it has the possible result of pregnancy. Wanted or not.

"The moment a woman deems a fetus to be absolutely unwanted, it becomes a violator of her person and property."

That is the kind of "logic" that the author of the paper being discussed "logically" extended to newborn. Again I repeat, with liberty comes responsibility. And while I have no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body, our liberty stops at the point of infringing on others liberty.

Death is the ultimate deprivation of liberty.

[BuddyRey]

SV, you're using the Rothbardian defense of abortion based on the "fetus as tenant" and "mother as landlord" idea, and even though I disagree with it, it's still a valid argument and I can see how a case could be made for it. However, Rothbard also talked about proper retaliatory force being commensurate with initiatory force. In "The Ethics of Liberty", he illustrates excessive (non-commensurate) force by providing the example of a little girl entering a grocery store and stealing a piece of candy from the shelf. The shopkeeper reacts by cutting the girl down in a hail of gunfire. But similarly, in ending the life of a tresspassing fetus, the commensurate force concept is thrown out of the window.

Of course, for now, we're at a loss for a more effective scientific means of non-violent "fetal eviction." But in the meantime, shouldn't we at least enshrine (not legally, but morally) the right of nascent life to not be snuffed out the way we enshrine similar rights of existing life? It's absolutely true what you say that "all rights are property rights." But the very first property we know, from before we even understand the concept, is the property of our very existence.

[Sentient Void]

SV, you're using the Rothbardian defense of abortion based on the "fetus as tenant" and "mother as landlord" idea, and even though I disagree with it, it's still a valid argument and I can see how a case could be made for it.

Yessir. Glad to see someone recognize this.


However, Rothbard also talked about proper retaliatory force being commensurate with initiatory force. In "The Ethics of Liberty", he provides the example of a little girl entering a grocery store and stealing a piece of candy from the shelf. The shopkeeper reacts by cutting the girl down in a hail of gunfire. But in this example, and the example of ending the (eminent, if not realized) life of a tresspassing fetus, the commensurate force concept is thrown out of the window.

You're speaking my language. This seems to be a very powerful and legitimate counter-point that I for some reason had not even considered. One for me to think deeply and reflect on. Thanks.


Of course, for now, we're at a loss for a more effective scientific means of non-violent "fetal eviction." But in the meantime, shouldn't we at least enshrine (not legally, but morally) the right of nascent life to not be snuffed out the way we enshrine similar rights of existing life? It's absolutely true what you say that "all rights are property rights." But the very first property we know, from before we even understand the concept, is the property of our very existence.

Considering your argument, I may actually come your way on the *moral side* of the argument against abortion. Again, I'll have to think more extensively on this before I absolutely fall down on that side of it.

But there is still the consequential argument... Perhaps, while abortion may be an injustice from even a consistent property-rights perspective (that it violates the proportional restitution/retribution concept of justice in self-defense), prohibiting it seems to be a cure worse than the disease itself. This would seem to make the problem worse, not better.

Understand - this entire time I've even fully supported my property-rights position in the right to abort, I still think it should be avoided as much as possible. I think we should all work to convince our friends and family and others who consider this option as something they should not pursue - and instead support adoption if they really do not want the child. While I believe(d?) women have the right to abort, it doesn't mean I think they should do it, or that I support abortion personally. I certainly do not.

It's like many other rights. Just because on has the 'right' to call a complete stranger a really, really bad word or name (such as a racial epithet), doesn't mean they should do it. And because abuses of those rights are horrible or bad or undesired, doesn't mean the government should prohibit it - it would again be a cure worse than the disease.

[thoughtomator]

I have long thought that anyone who styles himself an "ethicist" is a clear and present danger to the human race.

[Kluge]

SV, you're using the Rothbardian defense of abortion based on the "fetus as tenant" and "mother as landlord" idea, and even though I disagree with it, it's still a valid argument and I can see how a case could be made for it. However, Rothbard also talked about proper retaliatory force being commensurate with initiatory force. In "The Ethics of Liberty", he illustrates excessive (non-commensurate) force by providing the example of a little girl entering a grocery store and stealing a piece of candy from the shelf. The shopkeeper reacts by cutting the girl down in a hail of gunfire. But similarly, in ending the life of a tresspassing fetus, the commensurate force concept is thrown out of the window.

Of course, for now, we're at a loss for a more effective scientific means of non-violent "fetal eviction." But in the meantime, shouldn't we at least enshrine (not legally, but morally) the right of nascent life to not be snuffed out the way we enshrine similar rights of existing life? It's absolutely true what you say that "all rights are property rights." But the very first property we know, from before we even understand the concept, is the property of our very existence.

+1

[BuddyRey]

Yessir. Glad to see someone recognize this.

You're speaking my language. This seems to be a very powerful and legitimate counter-point that I for some reason had not even considered. One for me to think deeply and reflect on. Thanks.

Considering your argument, I may actually come your way on the *moral side* of the argument against abortion. Again, I'll have to think more extensively on this before I absolutely fall down on that side of it.

But there is still the consequential argument... Perhaps, while abortion may be an injustice from even a consistent property-rights perspective (that it violates the proportional restitution/retribution concept of justice in self-defense), prohibiting it seems to be a cure worse than the disease itself. This would seem to make the problem worse, not better.

Understand - this entire time I've even fully supported my property-rights position in the right to abort, I still think it should be avoided as much as possible. I think we should all work to convince our friends and family and others who consider this option as something they should not pursue - and instead support adoption if they really do not want the child. While I believe(d?) women have the right to abort, it doesn't mean I think they should do it, or that I support abortion personally. I certainly do not.

It's like many other rights. Just because on has the 'right' to call a complete stranger a really, really bad word or name (such as a racial epithet), doesn't mean they should do it. And because abuses of those rights are horrible or bad or undesired, doesn't mean the government should prohibit it - it would again be a cure worse than the disease.

You thanked me for providing a thought-provoking counterpoint, but I'd like to thank you in kind, for being open-minded and receptive to it! :)

And I completely agree with you about the legal side of this issue. Abortion is something that should never be legislated, especially at the state or federal level. This is a point on which libertarians of both pro-choice and pro-life stripes can agree; the less government involvement we can have in this issue, the better. What you and I have just done now - the non-coercive exchange of opinion and ideas - should be the only public testing ground for either side of this issue. Legislation can and should be left out of it.

And on the finer point of the eviction argument, my honest hope is that someday, science will have advanced to the point that non-consensually pregnant women can have their fetuses incubated outside of the womb until fully developed, and then adopted by one among thousands of perfectly suited and loving would-be parents who currently get strangled and tangled in the adoption bureaucracy every year. The fact that we've got tens of thousands of unwanted kids of all ages, and just as many people who would be more than happy to take care of them if only they were "allowed" to, is inexcusable.

[Cabal]

Oh I get it just fine. Any person old enough to have consensual sex is old enough to know it has the possible result of pregnancy. Wanted or not.

"The moment a woman deems a fetus to be absolutely unwanted, it becomes a violator of her person and property."

That is the kind of "logic" that the author of the paper being discussed "logically" extended to newborn. Again I repeat, with liberty comes responsibility. And while I have no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body, our liberty stops at the point of infringing on others liberty.

Death is the ultimate deprivation of liberty.

Moreover, I think there's something to be said about implied contract, in a sense.

First, it's actually rather difficult to get pregnant these days if you make a conscious effort to protect yourself--and there are many easy and relatively inexpensive ways to do that. Second, it's also relatively simple to determine if you do happen to become pregnant, or at the very least be mindful of the possibility--it's not like it just sneaks up on you out of nowhere (you don't just wake up one day to discover a fetus inside of you). And finally, there's a good amount of time in which a potential mother can both determine these things and make a decision on said pregnancy before the fetus has even developed.

So, taking all of this into consideration, and bearing in mind that a fetus has not asked to be created or forced itself into existence, allowing a fetus to develop seems to me a good example of implied consent. If the mother did not desire the pregnancy why did she not take measures to prevent the fetus from developing to begin with? Is poor decision making an excuse?

If we freely invite someone into our home one day and tell them to make themselves at home, and then after a couple of months we wake up one day and randomly decide they are forcing themselves on our property, do we go up to them while they sleep and shoot them point-blank with a shotgun?

The fetus is not initiating aggression against the mother, it's merely accepting the offer to live which the mother has apparently extended to it by letting the fetus develop. For me it just doesn't make sense why someone would allow a fetus to develop if they truly didn't want to have a child.

Admittedly this is a tricky subject for me, and I certainly don't have all the answers, but this is my perspective after a decent amount of thought on the issue (far before this thread was created)--and I'm all about property rights, mind you.

[Origanalist]

"And I completely agree with you about the legal side of this issue. Abortion is something that should never be legislated, especially at the state or federal level. This is a point on which libertarians of both pro-choice and pro-life stripes can agree; the less government involvement we can have in this issue, the better."

Very well stated and I completely agree. And I thank you for your cool reasoning on a subject I admittedly get a bit excited about.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

The religion of science will be the cause of more murder, slavery, and misery than all of the world religions that have come before it.

You're joking right?

[Kluge]

You're joking right?

No. He thinks that people like myself are more evil than those who actually pull the triggers and order others to pull the trigger.

Now pardon me while I go slaughter some babies, especially Christian babies--they're tastier.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Uh, what do you mean?

To expand from Sentient Void's earlier post, that the woman's body is her property, and she has the right to expel - not to kill, unless the fetus' existence is a mortal threat to the woman, but to expel - anyone she no longer wishes to reside in her property. When this principle is rejected, one accepts that the fetus, already seen and understood as a human being, possesses rights that require a person or persons to work for the benefit of another person. If the argument that since this fetus is defenseless that it is worthy of protection is the standard, it follows logically that:

Children - especially infants and toddlers - out of the womb are also largely if not entirely defenseless, and thus possess the right to be taken care of

Disabled and the infirm, as they are defenseless and unable to protect themselves, possess the right to be taken care of

The elderly, no longer in command of the physical or mental capabilities to provide for themselves, possess the right to be taken care of

This is the basic safety net.

Once government actively involves itself into those circumstances, inevitably expansion will soon begin. To continue, I will list the following situations, in a fashion resembling The Tale of the Slave:

Seniors who have not taken the precautions to prepare for retirement (or, as it currently is, most seniors who can't do so thanks to government theft and counterfeit) are unable to care for themselves, and should be taken care of

The homeless and extremely poor do not possess the means to provide and care for themselves, and should be taken care of

The poor suffer from a lifestyle that does not meet their needs for nutrition, education, and healthcare, and should be taken care of

Up to here, I've outlined the majority of the scope of the current state of the welfare state.

Manual laborers enjoy a lifestyle that is not in line with the amount of work they do in comparison to the white collar individual. This is unjust, and should be remedied.

I ask - at what point is coercion and government force requiring persons to work for the benefit of another not endorsed?

The moral obligation of caring for the unborn, elderly, or anyone else is not inappropriate; however, legislating this morality is inappropriate, as it forces everyone at the threat of violence to support the whims of the majority. Abortion will exist and persist no matter the legislative stance on the issue; why condone violence, theft, and the creation of positive rights to combat this issue? Persuasion and reason without violence is the solution.

[Cabal]

Same thing that has happened with prohibiting drugs, alcohol, prostitution, etc.

Prohibition doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

You ever hear about what happened in Chile when they tried to blanket-ban abortions?

Prohibition of murder doesn't work; therefore murder should be legal/tolerated?
Prohibition of theft doesn't work; therefore theft should be legal/tolerated?
Prohibition of assault doesn't work; therefore assault should be legal/tolerated?
Prohibition of rape doesn't work; therefore rape should be legal/tolerated?

Drug use, alcohol use, and prostitution do not involve the taking of what is arguably (if not factually) another human life (fetus) without consent.

[Lishy]

When is abortion ever necessary?
Rape. Not 7 months into pregnancy though! :P

Though, like Paul says: Just give the girl a quick shot of estrogen and we can avoid the abortion issue altogether!

I mean, honestly, if you wait 7 months before an abortion, if there isn't a good reason, then you're a horrible person!

But I don't see what's wrong a day or two after.

[Sola_Fide]

You're joking right?

No. I'm not joking about the religious nature of modern science or the fact that it has been and will cause more murder, slavery, and misery than all the religions that have come before it.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

let's start with the people who wrote this :p

[idiom]

The evictionist idea can also be extended to infants or disabled in your care. The arguments that it can't are pretty contorted.

Over on the other side, once you have good reliable abortion drugs it becomes quite hard to be pro-drugs and anti-abortion at the same time. It would be legal to own, sell and take abortion drugs, just you get murder 1 if you miss-carry? What if an abortion drug turns out to have a tonne of other recreational uses or medicinal properties?

What the line or logic does mostly is expose the flaws in the Rothbardian 'axioms' as the sole basis for ethics.

[ZenBowman]

Would you care to elaborate? It seems to me that most of the reasons used for abortion could be used on a newborn.

After all, it's still not viable if left on it's own.

It is, because someone else could take care of it.

A fetus cannot be instantly transplanted to another womb, so if it is unwanted, and we force the woman to keep it, we are violating the rights of the woman over her own body over the rights of the fetus.

Whereas a baby can be instantly moved to someone else's care, so we do not have to violate the rights of the woman in order to keep the child alive.

If we had the technology to transplant a fetus from one womb to another, then a reasonable argument could be made that abortion is unethical if there is an available woman willing to accept the transplanted fetus.

[Voluntary Man]

Next thing ya know, someone will use this argument to rationalize the murder of loony ethi-cysts who rationalize extending abortion beyond the third trimester.

Will the madness never end?

[Melissa]

I dunno.... when one of my sons said, "I didn't ask to be born." I had to ask him if he would like me to take back my decision to have him born. Of course he knows I can't, so he uses his cute little "I didn't ask to be born." as an excuse to be an ass hole. Perhaps someday, he will be grateful he was born, but as for now.... I can't help feeling like perhaps I made a mistake.

Some people feel like the world owes them a living.... perhaps my son is a Democrat.

OMG love this as my 15 year daughter old says the same thing..

[The Free Hornet]

Prohibition of murder doesn't work; therefore murder should be legal/tolerated?
Prohibition of theft doesn't work; therefore theft should be legal/tolerated?
Prohibition of assault doesn't work; therefore assault should be legal/tolerated?
Prohibition of rape doesn't work; therefore rape should be legal/tolerated?

Drug use, alcohol use, and prostitution do not involve the taking of what is arguably (if not factually) another human life (fetus) without consent.

Prohibition leads to crime and murder. To take something that is not the violation of life or liberty and promote it to criminal status, is to ensure that gangs, criminality, and corruption rule the issue.

When you steal from someone, you are creating a conflict that did not exist prior. Same with assault and same with murder or rape. When you buy X from someone, there is no conflict. Both parties have a mutual interest. Prohibition is an unwanted third party injecting violence into the transaction.

Were you to not outlaw thievery, there is no reason to believe it would tolerated. If you can punch me and steal my watch, could I not bash you and steal it back? Law or no law we have a conflict that doesn't exist when you offer handjobs in the alleyway for money (hypothetically speaking).

You may be an anarchist, but you don't know how to defend it.

Also, your definition of prohibition is twisted. When people say, "prohibition doesn't work", they are not saying "laws do not work". It is a general reference to prohibition of substances like alcohol. It is not about the basis of natural law, the right to be left alone.

[Cabal]

Except killing a fetus is a violation of both life and liberty to many people.

Do not presume to lecture me on what it means to be anarchist. You seem to have a severe lack of reading comprehension as once again you are attacking nothing more than a straw man. I am not arguing for prohibition. I'm simply illustrating the absurdity of his argument in that particular instance. And you can spare me the semantic arguments.

[The Free Hornet]

Do not presume to lecture me on what it means to be anarchist.

Huh?


You seem to have a severe lack of reading comprehension as once again you are attacking nothing more than a straw man.

How am I replacing your arguments with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). You have ample opportunity to express your opinion rather than worrying about presumptions. Do you feel you are being attacked? If you write straw-man arguments in your name, then you are dishonestly engaging or trying to demonstrate absurdity by being absurd.

If it wasn't clear, this is my point: Arguments regarding the ineffecitiveness of prohibition are OK. In this context, prohibition refers to the outlawing of a controversial substance, product, procedure, idea (as in a banned book).

Whether serious or not, you stretched this line of thought as follows (these are your words, I make no presumptions):


Prohibition of murder doesn't work; therefore murder should be legal/tolerated?
Prohibition of theft doesn't work; therefore theft should be legal/tolerated?
Prohibition of assault doesn't work; therefore assault should be legal/tolerated?
Prohibition of rape doesn't work; therefore rape should be legal/tolerated?

The problems with this are as follows:

1) It changes the context of how prohibition is defined. Traditionally, prohibition is an unwanted third party (the government) interfering in an otherwise peaceful transaction between two parties.

2) Your examples cannot be "tolerated". Consider:


tol·er·ate   [tol-uh-reyt] verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.

1. to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.

2. to endure without repugnance; put up with: I can tolerate laziness, but not incompetence.

3. Medicine/Medical. to endure or resist the action of (a drug, poison, etc.).

4. Obsolete. to experience, undergo, or sustain, as pain or hardship.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerate

I cannot tolerate being murdered as it ends my existence. Nor could I say rape/assault won't cause me "pain or hardship". Certainly theft will not occur "without prohibition or hindrance" on my part. Nor could a society thrive where these action occured without limit. "murder/theft/assault/rape" cannot be tolerated because they are practically the essense of intolerable. Nor can "murder/theft/assault/rape" be "legal" as it stetches the definition of what we would consider a lawful society. That is not to say you can't get away with it. Plantation owners did these things to their slaves without hinderance (largely). Society functioned because non-slaves were excepted. That is not a good thing but at no time was murder - as an abstraction - OK. Rather, some were excluded as being victims because they were treated as not fully human or not deserving of protection as an individual. Not unlike a fetus.


3) "Legal" does not make much sense a in context where "murder/theft/assault/rape" are legalized or tolerated. If you are demonstrating absurdity by being absurd, you have suceeded. It is not clear this was your intent.

[The Free Hornet]

To revist the fences or "a mother's womb is China" line of thought, here are some considerations.

1) I believe at some point, human life should be protected by society (not just our parents)

2) There are several opportunities at which to begin this defense.

a) "Every sperm is sacred". This perspective could outlaw (or punish by wayward caregivers) masterbation as a sin.

b) Life begins at conception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilisation).

[I'm assuming this was or is a typical pro-life stance and where many self-labeled "pro-lifers" want government intervention - I'll accept that pro-lifers on this forum may not want government intervention]

c) dividing, zygote

[ENTER A DOCTOR with a shot of estrogen to prevent "pregnancy", evict the zygote? - OK per Ron Paul?]

d) implantation

[The next stages are not necessarily in chronological order]

e) first trimester (includes bcd stages above, of course)

f) second trimester

g) viability

h) third trimester

i) birth

[most would outlaw killing a baby at this point, the Aussie kook argues for a further grace period]

j) "age of reason"

Would not most would outlaw the killing somewhere above at b, c, d, f, g, h, or i?

3) Lastly, I don't see a principle difference between b (conception), c (dividing zygote), and d (implantation). Where is the moral high ground being OK with nixing things after conception yet before implantation? I don't like the idea of abortion one minute prior to birth (when the baby is no different functionally to a born individual) yet I do not see the role of government prior to birth. My point is to keep government out of the equation until a clear, unambiguous line - or border - is crossed.

[Anti Federalist]

SV, you're using the Rothbardian defense of abortion based on the "fetus as tenant" and "mother as landlord" idea, and even though I disagree with it, it's still a valid argument and I can see how a case could be made for it. However, Rothbard also talked about proper retaliatory force being commensurate with initiatory force. In "The Ethics of Liberty", he illustrates excessive (non-commensurate) force by providing the example of a little girl entering a grocery store and stealing a piece of candy from the shelf. The shopkeeper reacts by cutting the girl down in a hail of gunfire. But similarly, in ending the life of a tresspassing fetus, the commensurate force concept is thrown out of the window.

Of course, for now, we're at a loss for a more effective scientific means of non-violent "fetal eviction." But in the meantime, shouldn't we at least enshrine (not legally, but morally) the right of nascent life to not be snuffed out the way we enshrine similar rights of existing life? It's absolutely true what you say that "all rights are property rights." But the very first property we know, from before we even understand the concept, is the property of our very existence.

Powerful, powerful point.

+rep


Yessir. Glad to see someone recognize this.

You're speaking my language. This seems to be a very powerful and legitimate counter-point that I for some reason had not even considered. One for me to think deeply and reflect on. Thanks.

Considering your argument, I may actually come your way on the *moral side* of the argument against abortion. Again, I'll have to think more extensively on this before I absolutely fall down on that side of it.

But there is still the consequential argument... Perhaps, while abortion may be an injustice from even a consistent property-rights perspective (that it violates the proportional restitution/retribution concept of justice in self-defense), prohibiting it seems to be a cure worse than the disease itself. This would seem to make the problem worse, not better.

Understand - this entire time I've even fully supported my property-rights position in the right to abort, I still think it should be avoided as much as possible. I think we should all work to convince our friends and family and others who consider this option as something they should not pursue - and instead support adoption if they really do not want the child. While I believe(d?) women have the right to abort, it doesn't mean I think they should do it, or that I support abortion personally. I certainly do not.

It's like many other rights. Just because on has the 'right' to call a complete stranger a really, really bad word or name (such as a racial epithet), doesn't mean they should do it. And because abuses of those rights are horrible or bad or undesired, doesn't mean the government should prohibit it - it would again be a cure worse than the disease.

+rep for honestly assessing said point.

[Anti Federalist]

OMG love this as my 15 year daughter old says the same thing..

Pfft, I would then tell them they were hatched, and I was awarded custody as community service punishment.

[ZenBowman]

You thanked me for providing a thought-provoking counterpoint, but I'd like to thank you in kind, for being open-minded and receptive to it! :)

And I completely agree with you about the legal side of this issue. Abortion is something that should never be legislated, especially at the state or federal level. This is a point on which libertarians of both pro-choice and pro-life stripes can agree; the less government involvement we can have in this issue, the better. What you and I have just done now - the non-coercive exchange of opinion and ideas - should be the only public testing ground for either side of this issue. Legislation can and should be left out of it.

And on the finer point of the eviction argument, my honest hope is that someday, science will have advanced to the point that non-consensually pregnant women can have their fetuses incubated outside of the womb until fully developed, and then adopted by one among thousands of perfectly suited and loving would-be parents who currently get strangled and tangled in the adoption bureaucracy every year. The fact that we've got tens of thousands of unwanted kids of all ages, and just as many people who would be more than happy to take care of them if only they were "allowed" to, is inexcusable.

Great post.

[Kluge]

The evictionist idea can also be extended to infants or disabled in your care. The arguments that it can't are pretty contorted.

Over on the other side, once you have good reliable abortion drugs it becomes quite hard to be pro-drugs and anti-abortion at the same time. It would be legal to own, sell and take abortion drugs, just you get murder 1 if you miss-carry? What if an abortion drug turns out to have a tonne of other recreational uses or medicinal properties?

What the line or logic does mostly is expose the flaws in the Rothbardian 'axioms' as the sole basis for ethics.

Another round of good points.

I'd like to add some disjointed ones:

1. You can only get "murder 1" in that scenario if the government is watching you or someone turns you in. Another set of nightmares.
2. RU486 is an abortion drug, already available. There are many other, less reliable, natural abortifacients.
3. Making abortion and drugs illegal isn't even remotely close to being 100% effective, or even 50%.
4. Demanding that abortion be illegal is using the gov't as a crutch to attempt to solve a moral, societal problem.
5. Abortion is (almost always) in a different category of criminal behavior than a premeditated murder of another full-scale human being, no matter how similar the outcome may be. And by this, I mean that the motives are different (ignorance, fear, being threatened, etc.)

I just don't see a role for the government in this battle that isn't corrupt and doesn't degrades our other rights. Very much like the drug war.

[MikeStanart]

This would be more funny if it was an Anti-abortion person Trolling.

Scary that it isn't.