Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of "After-Birth Abortions" as Newborns aren't Persons
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.
First of all, I want to vocally say that as a pro-choicer I DO NOT support what these two people in the article are advocating for. I do think that many pro-choicers would agree with me on this for a few reasons.
For one, I find these people's claim that a fetus and a newborn are similar to the point where they're not considered to be persons to be completely full of shit. If a fetus is pre-viable, which is the type of fetus that the majority of abortions are done on, it cannot survive outside the womb. If something happens to the woman, the fetus will be fucked since it solely relies on the woman for survival (from sharing the same nutrition and oxygen as her while her womb shelters the fetus). If the fetus is viable, they can remove it from the woman if she starts to have health complications and keep it in NICU until the preemie is better.
Babies aren't solely relying on one person for survival. Sure, they need someone to help take care of them but they don't need the oxygen of another to survive as they can breath on their own or use the assistance of a machine to help them breath. Let alone, the big point that if something happens to me, my baby will not die alongside me because I died like it would as a fetus if it was pre-viable. My SO, my parents, my grandmothers, my brother, my other relatives, my friends, the hospital, the police, or any kind soul would take care of the baby. I mean...if I or anyone else doesn't want to take care of their baby, someone can gladly step in to take care of them.
Another thing that has to be pointed out is that if a woman carries to term, it usually means she wanted to. Many women abort electively prior to viability. The only times abortion happens after viability is if there's a health complication with the woman, fetus, or both. No woman who doesn't want to have a baby will wait until it's born to get rid of it. They will do it before the fetus would become viable.
I would also like to remark upon that the term "after birth abortion" is ridicilous. Abortion is defined as terminating a pregnancy, which results in the death of a fetus. If a baby has already been born, apparently the pregnancy is already over and the term "abortion" is useless since the pregnancy resulted in a birth.
It can be argued too by people that support abortion that abortion prevents something that's being advocated like this from happening or being needed. Once a baby is born, there are no physical health issues posed to a woman or anyone like it did when the woman was pregnant and going to deliver the baby. I mean, that one reason alone is why a lot of people support abortion because pregnancy can be risky and childbirth even riskier. Not to mention, I can't see a lot of people supporting something like what is being advocated in the article because many people don't believe in killing someone unless it's in self-defense. And these two used the dp as an excuse, but many people don't support that (I do, but I support it on grounds that we are removing a threat from society to protect the survival of other people since I don't believe you can rehabilitate some people...and I based that on the DC snipers).
Personally, I don't believe in killing a born entity unless it's for survival purposes (i.e self-defense, for food-with animals). I mean, the biggest reason why I had been pro-life originally was because I mixed up abortion with infantside since I thought it was killing a baby (a newborn). So, of course I'm not going to support that even as a pro-choicer. Sorry to these Ethicists. IMO, you are advocating infantside and I don't support choices like that.
First of all, I want to vocally say that as a pro-choicer I DO NOT support what these two people in the article are advocating for. I do think that many pro-choicers would agree with me on this for a few reasons.
For one, I find these people's claim that a fetus and a newborn are similar to the point where they're not considered to be persons to be completely full of shit. If a fetus is pre-viable, which is the type of fetus that the majority of abortions are done on, it cannot survive outside the womb. If something happens to the woman, the fetus will be fucked since it solely relies on the woman for survival (from sharing the same nutrition and oxygen as her while her womb shelters the fetus). If the fetus is viable, they can remove it from the woman if she starts to have health complications and keep it in NICU until the preemie is better.
Babies aren't solely relying on one person for survival. Sure, they need someone to help take care of them but they don't need the oxygen of another to survive as they can breath on their own or use the assistance of a machine to help them breath. Let alone, the big point that if something happens to me, my baby will not die alongside me because I died like it would as a fetus if it was pre-viable. My SO, my parents, my grandmothers, my brother, my other relatives, my friends, the hospital, the police, or any kind soul would take care of the baby. I mean...if I or anyone else doesn't want to take care of their baby, someone can gladly step in to take care of them.
Another thing that has to be pointed out is that if a woman carries to term, it usually means she wanted to. Many women abort electively prior to viability. The only times abortion happens after viability is if there's a health complication with the woman, fetus, or both. No woman who doesn't want to have a baby will wait until it's born to get rid of it. They will do it before the fetus would become viable.
I would also like to remark upon that the term "after birth abortion" is ridicilous. Abortion is defined as terminating a pregnancy, which results in the death of a fetus. If a baby has already been born, apparently the pregnancy is already over and the term "abortion" is useless since the pregnancy resulted in a birth.
It can be argued too by people that support abortion that abortion prevents something that's being advocated like this from happening or being needed. Once a baby is born, there are no physical health issues posed to a woman or anyone like it did when the woman was pregnant and going to deliver the baby. I mean, that one reason alone is why a lot of people support abortion because pregnancy can be risky and childbirth even riskier. Not to mention, I can't see a lot of people supporting something like what is being advocated in the article because many people don't believe in killing someone unless it's in self-defense. And these two used the dp as an excuse, but many people don't support that (I do, but I support it on grounds that we are removing a threat from society to protect the survival of other people since I don't believe you can rehabilitate some people...and I based that on the DC snipers).
Personally, I don't believe in killing a born entity unless it's for survival purposes (i.e self-defense, for food-with animals). I mean, the biggest reason why I had been pro-life originally was because I mixed up abortion with infantside since I thought it was killing a baby (a newborn). So, of course I'm not going to support that even as a pro-choicer. Sorry to these Ethicists. IMO, you are advocating infantside and I don't support choices like that.