This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's
quality standards. (December 2023) |
"After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" is a controversial [1] article published by Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini in Journal of Medical Ethics in 2013 (available online from 2012) arguing to call child euthanasia "after-birth abortion" and highlighting similarities between abortion and euthanasia. [2] The article attracted media attention [3] [4] and several scholarly critiques. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] According to Michael Tooley, "Very few philosophical publications, however, have evoked either more widespread attention, or emotionally more heated reactions, than this article has." [10] [11]
The argument of the article is as follows:
“Abortion” is the ending of a process, and in this case it refers to ending the process of pregnancy before its natural conclusion. Therefore, “after-birth abortion” is a self-contradictory phrase since birth ends the pregnancy leaving no pregnancy to be aborted. Some critics of the idea believe it is a phrase composed of words designed to hide the uncomfortable word of, infanticide.
“In conclusion, having investigated the new concept we have concluded that the term "after-birth abortion" is biologically and conceptually nonsensical.” [11]
This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's
quality standards. (December 2023) |
"After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" is a controversial [1] article published by Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini in Journal of Medical Ethics in 2013 (available online from 2012) arguing to call child euthanasia "after-birth abortion" and highlighting similarities between abortion and euthanasia. [2] The article attracted media attention [3] [4] and several scholarly critiques. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] According to Michael Tooley, "Very few philosophical publications, however, have evoked either more widespread attention, or emotionally more heated reactions, than this article has." [10] [11]
The argument of the article is as follows:
“Abortion” is the ending of a process, and in this case it refers to ending the process of pregnancy before its natural conclusion. Therefore, “after-birth abortion” is a self-contradictory phrase since birth ends the pregnancy leaving no pregnancy to be aborted. Some critics of the idea believe it is a phrase composed of words designed to hide the uncomfortable word of, infanticide.
“In conclusion, having investigated the new concept we have concluded that the term "after-birth abortion" is biologically and conceptually nonsensical.” [11]