Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Hat tip to Iggymom

When is a child a person?  At conception?  Viability?  Birth?  In the last case it is none of the above.  According to Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne if you don't want the child and give birth, you have the right to kill it.

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

Alberto Giubilini

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

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

Francesca Minerva

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

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

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

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.


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

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.

Read the full story here

I suppose this is the next step by the left to "empower" a woman. Why should anyone be "burdened" or "saddled" with a child.  The child has no value.  It cannot ask work, dress itself, feed itself.  It is nothing to these so-called ethicists.  Ethics?  These two don't know the meaning of the word.  They feel as long as the "mother" doesn't want the child, she should have the right to kill it.

The American Declaration of Independence states this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Have we forgotten those words?  Have we forgotten the simplest commandment of G-d:

Deuteronomy Chapter 5


16.  Thou shalt not murder.

Why should a child, born into the world, be MURDERED for the reason that it is inconvenient for the woman.  She should have thought of the consequences of her actions 9 months earlier when she decided to engage in sexual activity.

How a society treats the least and most helpless of its citizens shows how civilized, how mature it is.  This goes against all the rules of society.  But I fear it will be forced on us by those on the left.  First the "mother" choosing to kill her child, then the government forcing women to kill their children.  Especially those children who do not measure up to the government's idea of perfection.

How Obama's Health Care Funds Abortions: Stupak's Abortion Bait and Switch

by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook

Most of us didn't question Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-MI) commitment to unfunded taxpayer abortions - especially after he talked about it for days, but shame on us. We should have known better. These are Democrats, and they know not of principled commitment. But it was not just Stupak who chased after a way to vote for the bill. In fact, in the end, Stupak was of no concern to Nancy Pelosi. She had cut bait and moved to more lucrative waters - a coalition of about 30 Democrats who late on March 19th worked a deal to support their regional areas - mainly the hospitals, and they didn't care about abortion. Neither did most Democrats, despite the lies Stupak boldly spoke to the Nation.

Republicans asked for a "motion to recommit,"...language similar to Stupak's, ensuring no public funded abortions, be added to the bill before voting. That was not going to happen, even though Stupak knew the President's Executive Order was worthless.  See the roll call vote on the motion here. From the floor of the House, just before the vote on the Senate health care bill, Stupak called the Republican "motion to recommit," "disingenuous," and said this:

...it is the Democrats who have stood up for the principle of no public funding for abortion," he said on the House floor, 

Only 64 Democrats voted for his amendment. All but one Republican voted for the amendment. It was only due to Republican votes that Stupak's amendment made it into the bill. Henry Hyde, the author of the Hyde amendment was a Republican. Talk about "disingenuous." The myth of Pro-Life Democrats exposed. See this in the first video below.

But Rep. Stupak never planned to vote against health care, regardless of taxpayer funded abortions. In the second video from last Fall, at 1:29 minutes in, he tells constituents that if he has to accept federally funded abortions to have Democrat health care, he will do so, and still stay true to his principles. Hear the audience's abhorrent reaction.

So, who do we believe? Is there language in the Senate bill that allows for taxpayer-funded abortions?  Here is the explanation:

In this video, Stupak explained why the Hyde amendment did not apply to the Senate bill:

 [Senate legislation] is not subject to the annual appropriations law and therefore is not subject to the Hyde provisions contained in the annual labor HHS bill. The only way to provide Hyde protection of no public funding for abortion in the health insurance option and subsidies in the form of affordability credit found in the bill is to insert the Hyde amendment into this legislation...

This from the United States conference of Catholic Bishops further clarifies: the key is that the new monies in the bill, are not appropriated by funds restricted by the Hyde amendment:

The Senate bill authorizes and appropriates billions of dollars in new funding -- outside the scope of the appropriations bill covered by the Hyde amendment...These funds are new, and over he next five years they will be provided without being appropriated in the Labor/HHS appropriations act; therefore they are not covered by the Hyde amendment, which says only funds "appropriated in the Act...may not be used for elective abortions.

Bart Stupak just before House Vote on Senate Health Care bill



Stupak Will Vote for Taxpayer Funded Abortion if it is the only way to get health care (video)