# Medical ethicists: sure, it's ok to kill babies. "After-birth abortions". **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 2, 2012, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527 "2012-03-02T06:57:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/41 "2012-03-03T09:24:35Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > And [here’s the whole thing](http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full). And [here’s the full text of the editorial justification](http://jme.bmj.com/content/suppl/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.DC2/Savulescu_JME_defence_editorial_final.doc) [MS Word]: > [@](#): > > Termination of pregnancy is legal in most countries not only for severe disability but also for reasons of maternal welfare (or other reasons). Many also believe it to be morally acceptable. Giubilini and Minerva extend the long running debate on infanticide to ask: if abortion is permissible both for social as well as medical reasons, why is infanticide permissible only for medical reasons? > … > This extension of the existing debate around infanticide from medical indications to social indications is relatively novel. I don’t personally agree with it. But their arguments – based on the similar moral status of the fetus and neonate – demand rebuttal. > … > This paper passed peer review. The Journal does not publish or not publish articles because of the controversial nature of their conclusion. Publication decisions depend on the quality of the argument, as judged by peer reviewers and the editorial team. If an argument was based on obviously mistaken premises, then we would reject it. But in this case, the premises adopted by the authors have been widely defended as part of a long and ongoing debate on the moral status of early human life – embryos, fetuses and neonates, as the above literature attests. > [@Kimtsu](#): > > apparently neither of them has an advanced degree They both have doctorates. > [@otara](#): > > To me it reads as an argument for the importance of the fetus… I agree, and I read the paper in full. Reckon they’re doing the ol’ switcheroo. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/42 "2012-03-03T09:44:29Z")
I want to clarify why I think that they’re being disingenuous: > [@](#): > > …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. Why did they make this choice? They could easily have said “early life infanticide”, which merely clarifies the pre-existing term that they acknowledge. Instead, they created an unnecessary neologism that not only alters the primary meaning of the cardinal word, but happens to include one of the most hot-button topics in recent political debate (in the US, anyway). Unless they truly live in ivory towers, I can’t see that two philosopher PhDs with international experience would have failed to have predict the shit-storm that their argument would foment; and use of in the argument provides all the marketing they could possibly want. The only thing I could think of that explain why they’re not pulling everyone’s pizzle is that they chose the term because they naively thought that the use of the word ‘abortion’ would actually tone down the more pejorative term ‘infanticide’ _for a European audience_. However I think my earlier speculation is more likely. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/43 "2012-03-03T12:38:35Z")
It seems to me that this is a useful exercise to examine your postulate and take it to its logical conclusion and see where this conclusion ends. I certainly agree that given their definitions and postulates that the end conclusion is valid. I also agree that the conclusion is not a desired end result for me so the study leads me to examine the postulates and definitions used to come to the conclusion. That study allows me to refine and better apply the ethical postulates I live my life by. A wonderful philosophical exercise useful to refine and define the postulates used in bio-medical ethics. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/44 "2012-03-03T14:56:01Z")
> [@grude](#): > > I don’t care about abortion, but anyone in this thread who agrees and thinks its cool to kill a full term newborn. > > YOU THINK ITS OK TO KILL BABIES! > > Please step back and rethink your opinions 🙂 > [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > It is because the people who’ve advocated this are people who devote their studies to ethics at one of the most prestigious universities in the world. If anything else it shows how degenerate and insane and absurd many supposed intellectuals are. … > [@IntelliQ](#): > > Im not even a radical in your face dont kill babies type, but anyone advocating killing newborns should be executed. I know that doesnt sit well with liberals but meh, dont care. (just as one poster said they dont care if babies are killed or not - a moderator no less. really you dont know why it’s important or why you should care?) > > Pathetic that a few people even weight in with their support in the mirage of feigned shrugs. If you dont care, you would have fit right in with the Nazis. If you do care but wont take a strong stand against it, you’re worthless. Umm, y’all are aware that one of the benefits of putting an argument, like Giubilini & Minerva’s, on the table is it allows those who disagree to make strong arguments showing exactly why they’re wrong. Maybe y’all would like to at least _try_ to present one? I mean if it’s that clear to you then a good argument why should be easy, right? CMC fnord! > [@Wilson](#): > > “Your honor, in regards to **Enderw24** ’s death, I claim justifiable homicide, on the basis of cruel and unusual pun-ishment”. and totally overcooking that placenta! ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/45 "2012-03-03T17:16:16Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Umm, y’all are aware that one of the benefits of putting an argument, like Giubilini & Minerva’s, on the table is it allows those who disagree to make strong arguments showing exactly why they’re wrong. > > Maybe y’all would like to at least _try_ to present one? > I mean if it’s that clear to you then a good argument why should be easy, right? Because regardless of arguments for and against abortion, infants can survive independently. And I find it curious you’re so calm-where’s all the liberal outrage when the _Bell Curve_ got published-its argument is distasteful but far less so that this one? Would you just say let’s disprove it rather than foam at your mouth in rage and scream “RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!”? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/46 "2012-03-03T17:17:37Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Cite? No point getting your panties in a bunch before you find out what the institutional affiliations actually are in this case, sport. > So you’re totally off base in describing these authors as “people who devote their studies to ethics at one of the most prestigious universities in the world”. Rather, they appear to be some sort of junior researchers—apparently neither of them has an advanced degree—who have published a paper about a controversial idea. Big whoop. > > But, of course, even the most tenuous association with a major university is enough to make some people feel justified in saying “OMG ALL THE BOFFINS @ OXFORD WANT 2 KILL BAYBEEZ!!!11!!!” I stand corrected on that they did not work at Oxford. And I don’t have anything against Oxford or intellectuals-what I have a problem is with intellectuals who are basically sophists and seek to undermine civilized values. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/47 "2012-03-03T18:11:25Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Because regardless of arguments for and against abortion, infants can survive independently. And I find it curious you’re so calm-where’s all the liberal outrage when the _Bell Curve_ got published-its argument is distasteful but far less so that this one? Would you just say let’s disprove it rather than foam at your mouth in rage and scream “RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!”? :rolleyes: Because no one not on the Right thinks that people are going to go start stabbing two year olds because of this paper, while plenty of the Right will and have used books such as the _Bell Curve_ to justify their bigotry. The Right is dominated by racists; the middle and left are not dominated by baby killers. Scum like the Right is judged by different standards than non-scum. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/48 "2012-03-03T18:36:40Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > where’s all the liberal outrage when the _Bell Curve_ got published The Bell Curve was published before you were born (and in a very different Internet age), so I’m doubtful that you can assess how much it outraged people. I would suggest a couple of differences: The Bell Curve proposed a serious theory, and the ethicists being discussed here don’t _propose_ killing infants - they say it’s ethical to do so if we define life in a particular way. A lot of people actually believe there are racial differences in IQ and were happy to feel vindicated by The Bell Curve; other people were upset with its theories and with the idea that it would bolster the beliefs of racists. Just about everyone in our culture disagrees with the theory being proposed here, and that actually can have the effect of lessening the outrage. It just gets dismissed. However I’m very disappointed that you did not find a way to call anyone a Nazi in this post. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/49 "2012-03-03T18:47:11Z")
I tend to lean toward the position that they are trolling. Especially the part where where they argue that killing a newborn infant may be less traumatic for the mother than putting the baby up for adoption. ---
**Author:** ![Wheelz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wheelz/32/5718_2.png) [@Wheelz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wheelz)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/50 "2012-03-03T19:19:39Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > If anything, one could argue they are pro-lifers doing a slippery slope argument to show how preposterous they think Pro-Choice position is. This was my first thought, and I haven’t yet read anything here to knock me off that opinion. It’s no different than the folks who argue that allowing gay marriage is the same as allowing multiple marriage, bestial marraige, pedophilia, and so forth. Slightly more subtle, but not by a lot. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/51 "2012-03-03T19:23:28Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I tend to lean toward the position that they are trolling. Especially the part where where they argue that killing a newborn infant may be less traumatic for the mother than putting the baby up for adoption. She should just eat it - otherwise it’s a waste of perfectly good protien. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/52 "2012-03-03T20:29:35Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > She should just eat it - otherwise it’s a waste of perfectly good protien. If it is Chinese will you be hungry again after a half hour? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/53 "2012-03-03T20:36:28Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > … And I find it curious you’re so calm-where’s all the liberal outrage when the _Bell Curve_ got published-its argument is distasteful but far less so that this one? Would you just say let’s disprove it rather than foam at your mouth in rage and scream “RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!”? Well, mostly because usually when I foam at the mouth it’s because I’m brushing my teeth. I think **Marley23** ’s mostly covered this, but I’d add that _The Bell Curve_ made arguments that the authors claimed were backed by objective science while Giubilini & Minerva’s _After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?_ simply didn’t (not that I have, or will be, reading either). But moreover I’ve gotten old, and while at times I would describe myself as a leftist, in the Samuel Langhorne Clemens and Smedley Darlington Butler tradition. Mostly these days I’d describe my politics as [Apathist](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apathist#English) Anarchist (the real deal, I’ve actually read [Prince Kropotkin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin) and [Lady Emma](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman), but in the end I see that it’s all a joke and just don’t give a fuck anymore). But I thank you, with your limited actual knowledge of me and my politics, for thinking you have clue one as to what makes me “rage and scream”. Now for what I actually thought was worth responding to, > [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Because regardless of arguments for and against abortion, infants can survive independently. … Really? I think you really need to brush-up on the care and feeding of newborns and infants. ‘Cause the notion that “infants can survive independently” would lead one to conclude that at this point no one should actually leave an infant in your care . . . unless they want it dead. Human infants are pretty fuckin’ high on the list of animals that are in no way equipped for independent survival. Maybe you’d like to take another try at presenting an argument against Giubilini & Minerva’s position? 'Cause right now they’re still winning this argument! ☹ CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![florez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@florez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/florez)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/54 "2012-03-03T20:57:08Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > She should just eat it - otherwise it’s a waste of perfectly good protien. Really, after nine months of growing that baby…like Grandma always taught, that to waste is a sin. I myself am vegan, but I have heard it tastes like pork. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/55 "2012-03-03T21:01:07Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > To me it reads as an argument for the importance of the fetus, essentially arguing an equivalent between fetus and newborn. > > While supposedly arguing that this makes post-birth abortion OK, its really arguing that pre-birth abortion isn’t. I’m not so sure. One author, Alberto Giubilini, has written and published at least one article defending abortion ([here](http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/1/49.short), in the abstract of which he writes “(1) abortion is not only morally permissible but sometimes even morally mandatory and (2) abortion is morally permissible even when the potential person’s life is foreseen to be worth living”). He’s also on record as [defending euthanasia](http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/event/1167), something deeply religious people are often pretty iffy about. If this is all meant to build up to some reductio then it’s a bit of a long con. That’s not to say the authors aren’t being cagey or playful in the interest of gaining attention and stimulating debate. If you feel that abortion should be permissible by reasons of fetal non-personhood, then IMO this is an issue you’ll have to confront at some point. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/56 "2012-03-03T21:30:01Z")
Specifically, I think some people attempt to maintain an inconsistent set of positions rather like the following tetrad: 1. A fetus is not a person (or not fully a person, or only potentially a person). 2. An infant child is a person and possesses all rights thereof. 3. Beyond a difference in environment a later-term fetus and a newborn infant are effectively identical. 4. An entity’s current location alone has no bearing on the question of its personhood. A robust defense of the permissiveness of abortion needs either reasons unrelated to fetal personhood (e.g. greatest-good utilitarianism, or the parasitic nature of pregnancy), or to set the point at which a fetus becomes a person. But that’s a difficult problem for sorites-like reasons: surely if at instant x I’m a person then I was a person at instant x minus one nanosecond? And if we punt and deny (4) — claiming that a fetus is not a person simply because it’s unborn — then the question of infanticide really can’t be avoided. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/57 "2012-03-03T21:58:32Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > A robust defense of the permissiveness of abortion needs either reasons unrelated to fetal personhood (e.g. greatest-good utilitarianism, or the parasitic nature of pregnancy), or to set the point at which a fetus becomes a person. But that’s a difficult problem for sorites-like reasons: surely if at instant x I’m a person then I was a person at instant x minus one nanosecond? I dunno, you’re a legal voter at age 18, but not one at 18-minus-one-nano, so I fail to see the problem. There are lots of legal benchmarks relating to arbitrary lines drawn in time and space and the system hasn’t collapsed as a result. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/58 "2012-03-03T22:51:19Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Umm, y’all are aware that one of the benefits of putting an argument, like Giubilini & Minerva’s, on the table is it allows those who disagree to make strong arguments showing exactly why they’re wrong. > > Maybe y’all would like to at least _try_ to present one? > I mean if it’s that clear to you then a good argument why should be easy, right? Do we really need to construct an argument as to why murdering newborn babies is wrong? I propose torturing and then eating 5 year old Asian children. Please write a 30 page research paper, with endnotes, telling me how my proposal is wrong and don’t simply dismiss it out of hand. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2012, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/59 "2012-03-03T23:16:58Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Do we really need to construct an argument as to why murdering newborn babies is wrong? No, just that the ethical argument is flawed. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527/60 "2012-03-04T01:41:43Z")
> [@InterestedObserver](#): > > At any rate, it just really pisses me OFF when people characterize a woman’s decision to abort as “selfish” or “casual” or based only on her right to refuse to harbor a “parasite” against her will. Sure, she HAS that right, and I defend it. But there ARE other rationales which, imo, are equally valid. There are so many “gray areas” when it comes to ethics and morality…seldom is it as black and white as some would have us believe. > > Edited to add: just to clarify, I was not lumping the poster I replied to in with those people who characterize abortion in such a way. Thank you for sharing, and perhaps I should clarify a bit, it is her decision because she is the child’s world and universe which puts her in the role of God for her child, which gives her the right as I see it. For one who believes in God, it is a incredible powerful role of creator that God has given women in this very decision. And who can judge a god but God, so the decision is between her and God alone. That said I really hate the characterization of a fetus as a parasite. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medical-ethicists-sure-its-ok-to-kill-babies-after-birth-abortions/614527.md?page=4)