After-Birth Abortion: Has Free Will Gone Too Far?

The term 'after-birth abortion' was invented by two ethical philosophers: Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. Writing for the Journal of Medical Ethics they state that:

'When circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible […] We propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus […] 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.'

In certain circumstances, such as where the standard of living of the child would be drastically less than humane, it is more ethical to perform an abortion. Others (from here on in referred to as the 'pro-life school of thought', or simply 'pro-life') would argue that all life is sacred and that it is not any one person's choice to decide whether or not to end that life based on extraneous causes. Some people (forthwith referred to as the 'pro-choice school of thought', or simply 'pro-choice') refute the sanctity of life and say the choice of abortion should be ultimately with the mother, for whom parenthood holds the greatest responsibilities and sacrifices.

There are merits to both arguments - on the pro-life side, life is precious and should be preserved where possible, and there is always that inkling of doubt about whether circumstances would have improved in the long run. On the other hand, pro-choice advocates that on the one side, if the standard of living of the child will be considerably less than is seen as acceptable then it is not fair for us to apply our own morals to an indifferent, neutral being and preserve that life to appease our own conscience. On the other side, it is ultimately the mother's choice: some women may not be ready for the responsibilities of motherhood - both physically and mentally; others may be ready but circumstances outside of their control change that fact. If the child is bought into the world regardless of the mother's wants or needs, purely to preserve the sanctity of life, then it will never be the same as if the child is yearned for by a loving, maternal woman. Ask yourself whether you would chastise a rape victim for wishing to have an abortion.

The above debate, however, is about pre-natal abortion, which is an established - albeit controversial - medical phenomena. There are guidelines for this practice, and different methods depending on the progress of the pregnancy. While still a hotly-debated topic in schools of ethics, in day-to-day arenas it is possible, and due to human rights activists is slowly becoming more mainstream and subsequently more acceptable. Now, however, the furore surrounding abortion has been stepped up a notch. The two philosophers mentioned at the start of this article have suggested that the guidelines surrounding abortion should be extended (not just past the 24-week period the UK law currently prescribes, but to the full extent of gestation and beyond). The new term 'after-birth abortion' is horrifying in it's implications, suggesting that the mother should have the right to terminate the pregnancy even after the child has been born. This is taking the pro-choice mandate to the absolute extreme. In a historical throwback, this new idea is reminiscient of the Roman rule of paterfamilias, where the head of the household had absolute power of life and death over all members of his family. There is a reason mankind has progressed from this practice.

If you look at the argument objectively, and remove all emotional attachment to any offspring you may have or want to have, the premise behind the argument is benevolent. Giubilini and Minerva propose that the 24-week cut-off point is too early and that severe problems can occur up to the point of birth, and even after. If you would consider ending a pregnancy for humane reasons in the early stages, then it is not too broad a stretch of the imagination to say it is still humane to do so later on if previously-unseen complications begin to arise.  However, extending this to the period after the actual birth, when the fetus has transformed into an actual human being, breathing independently, is grotesque, and is an idea that will undoubedly be rejected worldwide. There are universal laws against infanticide and murder and these labels readily apply to the actions deemed permissible by Minerva and Giubilini.

Not content with the controversiality of what they have already said, Giubilini and Minerva later state that '[w]e do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible,' which means the power of abortion would be indefinite, and could be invoked at any time. Similar to arguments about what constitutes a poor standard of living, when is it acceptable to no longer consider the death of your child? On a logical basis, the time frame is subjective and would be unique to each person. On an intellectual, ethical, moralistic basis the question is ridiculous and is not worthy of attention.

Naturally, if the woman does not want the child (for whatever reason) advising her that adoption is a better, more ethical option than abortion is a huge ask of her and a sacrifice nine times out of ten she will not be willing to make. The body is irreversibly changed by the process of pregnancy and the birth itself without the end product - the child - is one most would be unwilling to go through, even for the altruistic purpose of providing another family with a child. The same, however, cannot be said for this new idea of after-birth abortion. If the child is already born, then it is a cruel and heartless waste to needlessly terminate it and in doing so deprive a struggling family with the child they crave. It would be difficult to live with this level of callousness, and it is even more difficult to fathom this level even existing.

The most absurd and laughable part of their argument is their position on adoption. Disregarding all notions of the sanctity of life, and putting the woman as the peak of importance, they state that after-birth abortion is in the best 'interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption.' Obviously, it goes without saying, that it will cause much less psychological stress to kill the child than to pass it on to a happy home. This invokes the childlike selfishness of 'if I can't have it, no-one will', and is frankly disgusting.

Minerva and Giubilini appear to have taken the axiom 'look out for number one' as their war cry in this ethical battle, stating that they have called their proposal '"after-birth abortion" rather than "euthanasia" because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice.' Abortion can only be condoned if it is for humane reasons. Again this is subjective, but it can be acceptable if done to save the unborn child from poverty, starvation or cruelty. The pro-life among us may hold all life as sacred and condemn those who advocate abortion, but in some situations who is really the 'better' party?

To conclude, I think Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva have a lot of courage to come out with ideas as bold and as controversial as this, yet I think in doing so they have alienated themselves from the world and forever tainted their names and reputations. Maybe it would be more humane to just kill them, as their standard of living will now be decreased.

Simon Birkmyre & William D. Green

This article was written in response to William Saleten's article on The Washington Post Social Reader entitled 'After-Birth Abortion'.

https://apps.facebook.com/wpsocialreader/?ref=ts