Thoughts on abortion
I have been following the American election campaigns and the abortion issue is always on the table when politics are debated. Not so much right now though, as the immigration issue is mainly in focus. However, the idea of allowing after-birth abortion has been vented and it stuck in my mind, so I had to do some further research and reflections.
In the Netherlands it's legal to use euthanasia on newborn infants, when there is risk for unbearable suffering for the child. This may seem grotesque and savage, but is justified as an act of mercy, to spare someone of a life not worth living. In the article 'After-birth abortion, why should the baby live? from 2013, Alberto Guiblini and Francesca Minerva takes it a step further and suggests that the potential suffering of the parents and society should be reason enough to kill an infant after birth, even if it's fully healthy. "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." (Giublini & Minerva, 2013).
Guiblini & Minerva are basing their arguments on the assumption that fetuses and infants lack any aim and only are capable of experiencing either pain or pleasure. They mean that infants are not yet people, they are not persons or individuals with right to their own lives and are to be valued the same as fetuses. They even suggest that after-birth abortion could be preferred over adoption if the potential suffering of the birth mother would be worse if the child was given up for adoption, or if the child potentially would be a burden to society or the economic situation of the parents.
Giublini & Minerva (2013) suggest that after-birth abortion should not have any set time threshold : " First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess."
To not have a time threshold in combination with capricious definitions of what determines a person, and what determines suffering could in the long run escalate into a society where it is legal to assassinate children, or even adults, at any age, if they are deemed a burden to society, are not considered persons of value, or perceived as suffering beyond that is considered a life worth living. In America they already have the death penalty for criminals, so perhaps the step towards after-birth abortion is not that difficult for them.
My personal opinion on the matter is that when there is fetal viability abortion should not be legal and definitely not after-birth abortion. That is how I value and respect life in this context. I also don't think it's fair to base decisions regarding life and death on loose assumptions of what constitutes a person. Giublini & Minerva places greater value on "non-human animals" as persons than infants. I love animals and see them as persons too, but to use that as an argument to devalue infants does not land right even in my world. Human and non-human animals have souls too.
What are your thoughts? Please comment.
Peace & Love
Angelina
Soruces:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability
Comments
Post a Comment