Difference between revisions of "After-birth abortion"
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*[https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/39/5/261.full.pdf Research paper by Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva] |
*[https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/39/5/261.full.pdf Research paper by Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva] |
||
*[https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/abortion-outrage-mums-should-be-allowed-to-terminate-newborns-say-australian-academics Daily Telegraph] |
*[https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/abortion-outrage-mums-should-be-allowed-to-terminate-newborns-say-australian-academics Daily Telegraph] |
||
| + | *[https://slate.com/technology/2012/03/after-birth-abortion-the-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide.html Slate] |
||
== References == |
== References == |
||
Revision as of 13:44, 19 April 2020
In recent years feminists have been advocating for after-birth abortion.
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.[1]