KILLING INFANTS AFTER BIRTH, THE NEW ABORTION?

A trend was said to be developing among college students, on campuses nationwide, which I learned of last year and went back to explore recently - the growing acceptance of post-birth abortion, or killing an infant AFTER birth.  

This idea has been discussed in many forums, online journals, news sites, etc, but I was interested in what our college students thought.

Some campuses where the high school, college students, local activists and staff members of 'Created Equal' have encountered this opinion and videotaped or recorded conversations, interviews include Ohio State, Purdue, University of Minnesota, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Golden West College in Huntington Beach, Pomona College in Claremont, UC San Diego, and University of Central Florida. 

Reporter Joe Biggs got a number of students at the University of Texas in Austin to sign a petition for “post-birth abortion” that would allow killing children up to five years old. His efforts were captured on video.

[ NOTE: THE INTERVIEWS LISTED ABOVE WERE RECORDED AND TRANSCRIPTED, NOT INVENTED.]

One young man at the University of Minnesota thought it was alright to kill children if they were under the age of 5 years old, as he did not consider them persons until that age. 

FIVE? A FIVE YEAR OLD CHILD?
IF THEY AREN'T 'PERSONS', WHAT ARE THEY, I WONDER? 

As for the trend on campuses, Kristina Garza said there’s an explanation for it. 

For one, the arguments put forth by Peter Singer and other philosophers who support infanticide are given as reading assignments to college students.

Singer wrote in 1979 that “human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons … [therefore] the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”   

YES, SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT.
SOME PEOPLE DON'T HOLD LIFE AS SACRED.
THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT, RIGHT?

I came across this completely by accident and, at first, thought it must be a sick hoax.
NO, IT ISN'T A HOAX.
IT'S A CURRENT ETHICAL QUESTION BOTH HERE AND ABROAD.

IN CANADA, THIS IS REFERRED TO AS "LIVE BIRTH ABORTION".

"“These incidents appear to be homicides,” wrote MPs Maurice Vellacott, Leon Benoit and Wladyslaw Lizon, in their Jan. 23 letter to the RCMP commissioner.

The MPs are right about the fact that between 2000 and 2009, 491 aborted fetuses indeed exhibited “evidence of life” following their removal from the womb — be it a momentary heartbeat, a sudden gasp or, in rare cases, crying.

But, while the statistic may speak to one of the most uncomfortable grey areas of Canadian law, doctors say that it is too much to assume that this represents the killing of otherwise healthy babies that the MPs allege."

IN THE U.K. IT'S REFERRED TO AS "THE HEROD PROCEDURE".

"Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued."

Now, some of what I will present here comes from what we call "pro-lifers", but if you simply look up, search for, what they present as facts, you will see they ARE facts.
  
I searched, fully expecting to find no such evidence of Americans, young or old, who would agree that killing a newborn was acceptable.

i was wrong. 

SLATE magazine did an article on this "trend" , 

"After-Birth Abortion: The pro-choice case for infanticide".

That article came out in 2012...3 years ago! 

“Partial-birth abortion” is a term invented by pro-lifers. But “after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose: 

"[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … 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."

That entry into the Journal was submitted 25 November 2011.
I had no idea this was being discussed so long ago! 

Let's examine the abstract...

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."

And in their introduction: 
"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. "


After discussing the failure to diagnose rare diseases in utero and a child being born with a "surprise" affliction, they go on to say...

"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 

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." 

WAIT!
OF COURSE THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE CHOICE TO "KEEPING THE CHILD"... SURRENDER THE CHILD, JUST TURN THE BABY OVER TO A STATE AGENCY OR AN ORPHANAGE.

THE JOURNAL ARTICLE CONTINUES: 

" Abortion and after-birth abortion   

Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers3 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 

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 
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

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."

FOR ME, THAT READS LIKE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PUPPIES, OR KITTENS, OR....? 
IT'S SHOCKING!

CONTINUING THE SLATE ARTICLE:

"The case for “after-birth abortion” draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us, implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t.

Let’s look at some of those assumptions.

1. The moral significance of fetal development is arbitrary. I often hear this argument from pro-choicers in the context of time limits on abortion. In a debate last fall, I drew up a timeline of fetal development, week by week. 
The response from Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, was that it would be arbitrary to use any point in that timeline to draw a legal limit on abortion rights. 
Giubilini and Minerva seem to share this view. “Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons,” they write, conspicuously omitting the idea that abortions at an early stage are better than late ones for moral reasons. “Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life,” they write. “Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life,” such as “spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted” or “fetuses where abortion is permitted.”

Furedi accepts birth as the first logical time limit, though not for reasons of fetal development. (See her comments 44 minutes into this video.) But Giubilini and Minerva push beyond that limit. They note that neural development continues after birth and that the newborn doesn’t yet meet their definition of a “person”—“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.” Accordingly, they reason, “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.”

2. Prior to personhood, human life has no moral claims on us. 
I’ve seen this position asserted in countless comment threads by supporters of abortion rights. 
Giubilini and Minerva add only one further premise to this argument: Personhood doesn’t begin until sometime after birth. 
Once that premise is added, the newborn, like the fetus, becomes fair game. They explain:

[I]n 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. … In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. … 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.

You may find this statement cold, but where’s the flaw in its logic? If the neurally unformed fetus has no moral claims, why isn’t the same true of the neurally unformed newborn?

3. Any burden on the woman outweighs the value of the child.Giubilini and Minerva note that philosophers such as Peter Singer have presented arguments for neonaticide for many years. Until now, these arguments have focused on what’s best for the baby—in the words of recent Dutch guidelines, “infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering.” 
Giubilini and Minerva merely push this idea one step further, calling their proposal “‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice.”

“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,” they observe. 
Accordingly, “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.” 
An after-birth abortion might be warranted by any “interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being”—including “the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption.”

4. The value of life depends on choice. Pro-choicers don’t accept the idea that the path from pregnancy to maternity, being natural, must be followed. They argue that the choice is up to the woman. Some assert that the life within her has no moral status until she chooses to give birth to it.

Again, Giubilini and Minerva simply extend this logic beyond birth. 

Since the newborn isn’t a person yet, its significance continues to hinge on its mother’s decision. Neonates “might or might not become particular persons depending on our choice,” the authors argue. Until then, the newborn imposes no obligations on us, “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.”

5. Discovery of a serious defect is grounds for termination. 
Fetal development can turn tragic at any point. 
Most people agree that abortion should be permitted when a grave defect is discovered at amniocentesis. In the partial-birth abortion debate, pro-choicers extended this rationale, arguing that abortions in the third trimester should be permitted when horrible defects were identified at that stage. Giubilini and Minerva take this argument to the next level, noting that defects often remain undiscovered until birth:

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. 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.

The authors conclude that “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.” 

And it isn’t clear where the line against infanticide would be drawn. 

“We do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible,” Giubilini and Minerva write. They doubt that “more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child.” But critics are already noting that many defects are discovered later.

In sum, the authors argue:

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.

I don’t buy this argument, in part because I agree with Furedi that something profound changes at birth: The woman’s bodily autonomy is no longer at stake. But I also think that the value of the unborn human increases throughout its development. 

Furedi rejects that view, and her rejection doesn’t stop at birth. As she explained in our debate last fall, “There is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms it from a fetus into a person.”

The challenge posed to Furedi and other pro-choice absolutists by “after-birth abortion” is this: 

How do they answer the argument, advanced by Giubilini and Minerva, that any maternal interest, such as the burden of raising a gravely defective newborn, trumps the value of that freshly delivered nonperson? 

What value does the newborn have? At what point did it acquire that value? And why should the law step in to protect that value against the judgment of a woman and her doctor?"  

DISTURBING ARTICLE, THAT.

THERE IS A WEBSITE WITH A CURRENT COUNTER OF ABORTIONS, AS WELL AS DATA GOING BACK TO ROE V. WADE. 

THE STATS ARE DETERMINED BY SEVERAL GROUPS/ORGANIZATIONS THAT COLLECT DATA EACH DAY.   

U.S. ABORTIONS SINCE 1973: ROE vs WADE?


JUST SHY OF 58 MILLION.

WORLDWIDE ABORTIONS? 

ALMOST ONE AND A HALF BILLION, BILLION, WITH A "B". 

LOOKING AT THE STATS FOR WHO USES CONTRACEPTION IN THE U.S. AND WHO IS "AT RISK FOR UNWANTED PREGNANCY", CAN IT BE THAT PERHAPS ONLY 10% OF AMERICAN WOMEN ( THE 10% WHO USED NO FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL) HAD ALMOST 58 MILLION ABORTIONS IN THE PAST 30+ YEARS? 

DID ABORTION TAKE THE PLACE OF CONTRACEPTION HERE? 
HAS IT SIMPLY BECOME A "QUICK FIX" FOR SOME WHO DON'T USE CONTRACEPTION? 

DID WE VOTE FOR A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE JUST SO ANYONE CAN BE LAX ON BIRTH CONTROL AND THEN JUST GO HAVE AN ABORTION?   

I CAN'T ACCEPT THAT AS ETHICAL. 

SURE, IF A WOMAN NEEDS AN ABORTION TO SAVE HERSELF, OR TO TERMINATE A HEART-BREAKING PREGNANCY IN WHICH THE FETUS HAS NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL ANYWAY, OR TO TERMINATE A PREGNANCY DUE TO INCEST, RAPE, OR ONE THAT WILL BE TOO GREAT A BURDEN FOR THE FAMILY TO BEAR EMOTIONALLY OR IS INCAPABLE OF BEARING FINANCIALLY, WHEN ONE MUST ADMIT THE SAD FACTS AND END A PREGNANCY, SURE, OKAY.

BUT TO USE ABORTION INSTEAD OF COMMON SENSE BIRTH CONTROL?
NO! 
THE ETHICS OF THAT IS NONEXISTENT. 

AND TO EVEN HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT ALLOWING THE MURDER OF A SINGLE NEWBORN, OR A ONE-YEAR-OLD, OR, AS THE SEVERAL INTERVIEWED SAID, UP TO AGE FIVE? 

THAT IS CRIMINAL, AND BEYOND ABOMINABLE!