‘Journal of Medical Ethics’ Stands by publication of ‘After-Birth Abortions’ Article

[Backroads]

So I suppose I get what they're trying to say, but to me the logic is flawed.

[Guest]

Yes, the logic is very much flawed because before we can start discussing the ethics of abortion at any age - pre-birth or post-birth - we still have to sit down and agree on what constitutes a "person".

There's a group that declares "person" starts at conception (LDS don't agree with this necessarily).

There's a group that declares "person" starts at 24 weeks.

There's a group that declares "person" starts at birth.

There's no group as far as I know that declares "person" starts whenever the mother decides to let the baby mature to adulthood...

The tricky thing is even the LDS do not have a specific timeframe on when the "person" starts. It's all left up to the promptings of the Holy Ghost which is impossible to explain to non-LDS folks.

So, for me, personally, I go by the Catholic viewpoint. A person starts at conception. Period. So then, the article doesn't hold water because I don't agree with abortion at any time of the fetus' existence in the secular world. This, to me, is simpler to defend than the LDS standpoint.

[Vort]

So I suppose I get what they're trying to say, but to me the logic is flawed.

Actually, I think the logic is perfectly and chillingly valid.

If you begin with the premise that human life is not sacred per se -- a necessary prerequisite for justifying elective abortion -- then you inevitably arrive at the conclusion that you can justify killing anyone at any time. The postnatal abortion/infanticide idea is merely the second step in this progression.

[HEthePrimate]

To me, it would make sense to say that a fetus becomes a person when the spirit enters the body on a permanent basis (as opposed to "just visiting" the body to take it for a test drive ). Problem is, we don't know for sure when that happens. (Although I suppose atheists don't believe in spirits the same way we do, so they wouldn't accept that criterion.) Anyway, it seems obvious to me that by the time a baby is born, it is a person, and infanticide is wrong. Also notice how many more girls around the world are the victims of infanticide than boys. This is one problem that feminists and conservative LDS folk can agree on and work together to eliminate, which would help build bridges and all that jazz.

Edited March 12, 2012 by HEthePrimate

[annewandering]

Actually, I think the logic is perfectly and chillingly valid.

If you begin with the premise that human life is not sacred per se -- a necessary prerequisite for justifying elective abortion -- then you inevitably arrive at the conclusion that you can justify killing anyone at any time. The postnatal abortion/infanticide idea is merely the second step in this progression.

Exactly. When you take religion out then it doesnt matter. If they are useful fine. If not then why not delete them?

HethePrimate, interesting about the visiting idea. My two sons that died, one stillborn and one a few days old, seemed to not be there all the time. Its hard to explain how a person can sense that but I swear its true. Never noticed this with any of my other 8 kids. It has made me think that a spirit is there at least part of the time from the beginning of conception but not necessarily at all times.

The church has made no statement on when life begins so it seems safest to assume life is there from the beginning. I know, if I had a choice, I would want to check out this idea of my physical body and get used to the concept. Can you imagine how exciting that time was for us?

[Guest]

Exactly. When you take religion out then it doesnt matter. If they are useful fine. If not then why not delete them?

I'm not sure I agree with this Anne. I mean, murder is deemed wrong in American Society with or without the benefit of a religious mandate. Even atheists can agree with that. Cheating on your spouse is deemed wrong in American Society with or without the benefit of a religious mandate. Abandoning your child in a dumpster is the same thing. How is this any different?

[Backroads]

Actually, I think the logic is perfectly and chillingly valid.

If you begin with the premise that human life is not sacred per se -- a necessary prerequisite for justifying elective abortion -- then you inevitably arrive at the conclusion that you can justify killing anyone at any time. The postnatal abortion/infanticide idea is merely the second step in this progression.

I guess you're right!

From what I understand, the medical community (and I think a number of laws) will not allow abortions after so many weeks--because it's just too dangerous to the mother at that point. But putting the danger into the category of just a detail, we can conclude that the time spectrum when abortion--and heading right into murder-- is subject to details that could change at any moment.

[annewandering]

I'm not sure I agree with this Anne. I mean, murder is deemed wrong in American Society with or without the benefit of a religious mandate. Even atheists can agree with that. Cheating on your spouse is deemed wrong in American Society with or without the benefit of a religious mandate. Abandoning your child in a dumpster is the same thing. How is this any different?

I am not sure I agree with you on this. What would be the value to them? Maybe not murdering someone because they could go to jail? Since when do people even care about cheating anymore if they are not religious although jealousy is a pretty strong emotion, religion or not. As far as dumping children well there is the species survival thing although that does seem to be a big part of this argument. If it is wrong to dump a child in a dumpster why is it not wrong to kill them after birth?

[Guest]

I am not sure I agree with you on this. What would be the value to them? Maybe not murdering someone because they could go to jail? Since when do people even care about cheating anymore if they are not religious although jealousy is a pretty strong emotion, religion or not. As far as dumping children well there is the species survival thing although that does seem to be a big part of this argument. If it is wrong to dump a child in a dumpster why is it not wrong to kill them after birth?

The point I'm trying to make is that you CAN have a solid argument against after birth abortion or even before-birth abortion without getting into religion.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of nontheists and nonreligious sects of society who are pro-life just as there are a lot of nontheists and nonreligious sects of society who are anti-adultery and even anti-gay-marriage.

Here's an example:

An Open Letter from a Pro-Life Atheist

So, you see, we can learn to formulate a defense against what we doctrinally believe in - in the non-religious medical/societal turf.

[mordorbund]

While I can see the point on #2 (removed), I don't understand any after-birth reasoning on the remaining two.

What is this? "Oh, despite the fact that Mom made it through the birthing process without any harm, now that the baby is born we believe he might have caused a dangerous pregnancy even though it was more or less a normal pregnancy! In order to protect Mom's life we must after-birth abort it!" Or "It was a rather tricky pregnancy, but even though Mom gave birth just fine we need to after-birth abort the baby just to show it who's boss!"

"Here, ma'am, your bouncy bay boy/girl!"

"Yeah... I forgot to mention it was product of rape/incest."

I'm sorry, but the two aforementioned incidents should be dealt with PRIOR to birth.

My point with the life of the mother at risk wan't intended to be tied to pregnancy. If at any point another creature (person or not) puts the life of another at risk (mother or not), that person can ethically terminate that creature. I remember a discussion we had in 6th grade about a man driving down a narrow mountain road. As he came around a turn he dangerously slammed on his breaks when he saw a pregnant deer giving birth in the middle of the road. I can't remember if he hit the deer or not, but I do remember he threw the deer over the side, essentially killing it and the birthing fawn. You can replace the deer with a toddler and have a similar ethical discussion. Is it ethical to run over the toddler rather than careen off a cliff? I know there's usually a third option, but if you have to choose between your life or someone else's you can ethically argue for yours.

In the case of rape or incest, I don't think an abortion conversation would go the way you described (if it did, I don't think it's an ethical abortion - before or after birth). I imagine it would be more along the lines of the pregnancy, and the child, causing the mother to relive the trauma of the rape. If it's ok to snuff out the life before birth, it's ok to terminate after birth.

Edited March 13, 2012 by mordorbund

[mordorbund]

Yes, the logic is very much flawed because before we can start discussing the ethics of abortion at any age - pre-birth or post-birth - we still have to sit down and agree on what constitutes a "person".

There's a group that declares "person" starts at conception (LDS don't agree with this necessarily).

There's a group that declares "person" starts at 24 weeks.

There's a group that declares "person" starts at birth.

There's no group as far as I know that declares "person" starts whenever the mother decides to let the baby mature to adulthood...

The tricky thing is even the LDS do not have a specific timeframe on when the "person" starts. It's all left up to the promptings of the Holy Ghost which is impossible to explain to non-LDS folks.

So, for me, personally, I go by the Catholic viewpoint. A person starts at conception. Period. So then, the article doesn't hold water because I don't agree with abortion at any time of the fetus' existence in the secular world. This, to me, is simpler to defend than the LDS standpoint.

Why do you draw the line at conception? Why not just at birth?

Edited March 13, 2012 by mordorbund

[Guest]

Why do you draw the line at conception? Why not just at birth?

Because I'm a Mormon and I believe abortion is only acceptable when sanctioned by the Holy Ghost. Since I can't expect every other woman to have a testimony of the Holy Ghost, then I default to conception and build my secular defense on that premise.

[MarginOfError]

With an issue like this, you can't possibly bring everyone into agreement. For instance, I believe that birth is much too late to allow an abortion, but I believe that conception is much too early to disallow it.

The best attempt I've been able to come up to try and partially satisfy all comes is to state that abortion is impermissible after the point at which medical experts can reliably save the life of the fetus/infant at least 50% of the time. If that point in time is 30 weeks gestation, then so be it. Then, as medical knowledge advances, if we find that we can save at least 50% of infants after 22 weeks, then we disallow abortion after 22 weeks.

In a way, it's like saying that while the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother for survival, the mother is free to choose it's fate. But when society becomes capable of supporting the life of the fetus, society gets to have a say in it's fate. I would also include exceptions that currently exist for health concerns, serious birth defects, yadda yadda.

[annewandering]

With an issue like this, you can't possibly bring everyone into agreement. For instance, I believe that birth is much too late to allow an abortion, but I believe that conception is much too early to disallow it.

The best attempt I've been able to come up to try and partially satisfy all comes is to state that abortion is impermissible after the point at which medical experts can reliably save the life of the fetus/infant at least 50% of the time. If that point in time is 30 weeks gestation, then so be it. Then, as medical knowledge advances, if we find that we can save at least 50% of infants after 22 weeks, then we disallow abortion after 22 weeks.

In a way, it's like saying that while the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother for survival, the mother is free to choose it's fate. But when society becomes capable of supporting the life of the fetus, society gets to have a say in it's fate. I would also include exceptions that currently exist for health concerns, serious birth defects, yadda yadda.

You have a worldly logical argument but if there is any question wouldnt you want to err on the side of caution? If we KNEW that God considered life to begin at 22 weeks then I would have little problem with abortion before that time. Unfortunately, just because our science has not been able to save a 6 week pregnancy does not make that baby a nonperson. Nor does it mean a 2 minute conception is not a person. We just do not know yet we forge ahead giving into our convenience as the test for when it is ok to abort.

Even so this argument can not be used to argue for infanticide. The baby is born. He/she is not a piece of flesh that is debatable as to personhood. How can you argue a born child is not a person with a right to life? I still have not seen any logical argument for that yet that was what the article was supporting.

[mordorbund]

Because I'm a Mormon and I believe abortion is only acceptable when sanctioned by the Holy Ghost. Since I can't expect every other woman to have a testimony of the Holy Ghost, then I default to conception and build my secular defense on that premise.

Soo... why conception? So far your only arguments have been religious ones - namely, it's the Catholic stand, and it's a stricter view than the LDS one that you actually have. Do you have a secular defense built for the position that there should be no elective abortions from conception on?

[MarginOfError]

You have a worldly logical argument but if there is any question wouldnt you want to err on the side of caution? If we KNEW that God considered life to begin at 22 weeks then I would have little problem with abortion before that time. Unfortunately, just because our science has not been able to save a 6 week pregnancy does not make that baby a nonperson. Nor does it mean a 2 minute conception is not a person. We just do not know yet we forge ahead giving into our convenience as the test for when it is ok to abort.

Even so this argument can not be used to argue for infanticide. The baby is born. He/she is not a piece of flesh that is debatable as to personhood. How can you argue a born child is not a person with a right to life? I still have not seen any logical argument for that yet that was what the article was supporting.

I don't want abortions to happen at all. But I live in a world with people that don't share my moral convictions. That means that when it comes to civil law, I'm going to have to make some accommodations to people who believe differently than I do just as I expect them to make some accommodations to my beliefs.

What you seem to miss throughout this thread is that the issue at stake is not setting a personal code of morality, but setting public policy. It is possible for those two things to be different.

[annewandering]

I am not missing that point at all. In situations where infanticide is being discussed it seems to me that public policy is based on morality same as murder, thievery and most other laws are.

Honestly in this kind of situation I see no reason at all to make accommodation to anyone at all. When would you stop making accommodations? Never?

[Guest]

Soo... why conception? So far your only arguments have been religious ones - namely, it's the Catholic stand, and it's a stricter view than the LDS one that you actually have. Do you have a secular defense built for the position that there should be no elective abortions from conception on?

No, I don't base it off any religious stand - Catholic, LDS, or otherwise. It's purely a secular dilineation. I am not discussing abortion YET. I'm discussing the definition of "PERSON". A person begins to exist at Conception. Easy to define. Easy to understand. There's no "if", "but", "except" that muddies the definition... sperm meets egg = PERSON. At all cases.

Once that is established and agreed upon, then we discuss when it is ethical to terminate a Person. We have such ethics already in place such as: It is ethical to terminate the life of a person convicted of a heinous crime; It is ethical to terminate the life of an enemy combatant; it is ethical to terminate the life of somebody threatening your own life; and lately, it is ethical to terminate the life of somebody living in a vegetative state. Now we just need to extend that ethical discussion to cover the life of a PERSON before birth.

Then there's no question as to what or who we are talking about terminating here. Because, any ethical position one holds before birth will have to extend past birth if we unanimously establish that a person's existence starts at conception.

[annewandering]

No, I don't base it off any religious stand - Catholic, LDS, or otherwise. It's purely a secular dilineation. I am not discussing abortion YET. I'm discussing the definition of "PERSON". A person begins to exist at Conception. Easy to define. Easy to understand. There's no "if", "but", "except" that muddies the definition... sperm meets egg = PERSON. At all cases.

Once that is established and agreed upon, then we discuss when it is ethical to terminate a Person. We have such ethics already in place such as: It is ethical to terminate the life of a person convicted of a heinous crime; It is ethical to terminate the life of an enemy combatant; it is ethical to terminate the life of somebody threatening your own life; and lately, it is ethical to terminate the life of somebody living in a vegetative state. Now we just need to extend that ethical discussion to cover the life of a PERSON before birth.

Then there's no question as to what or who we are talking about terminating here. Because, any ethical position one holds before birth will have to extend past birth if we unanimously establish that a person's existence starts at conception.

We are doing good, Anatess! Once again I completely agree with your post. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

Forgive me if this has already come up, but I just came across this article that may be interesting to some. Tidbits I found interesting:

• There are now about 163 million "missing females" (female fetuses who were aborted solely because they were female) in the world today--more than the entire female population of the United States.
• 92% of fetuses diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted.
• A Canadian commentator notes that sex-selective abortion has become so common in Canada, he proposed banning doctors from telling their patients the baby's gender until the pregnancy has advanced to thirty weeks.