We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Two researchers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, from the Faculties of Philosophy of Milan (Italy) and Melbourne (Australia), have published an article entitled Abortion after birth: Why should the baby live? In the Journal of Medical Ethics where they defend that killing a newborn does not differ at all, from the moral point of view, to have an abortion. His thesis has not left anyone indifferent.
The researchers argue that a fetus and a newborn are two "morally equivalent" beings, since both have the potential to become people.
The authors say that "postpartum abortion " (expression they use) should be permissible in same cases in which it is abortion, even if the child does not present any disability ".
Why do they think this way? The researchers argue that “the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to that of a fetus, in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of the right to life to an individual ”. From their point of view, newborns are more than "real people", they are "Potential people", but they are not a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject with a moral right to life’ ”.
In this sense, the authors consider ‘person’ to an individual who is capable of ascribing some basic value to his own existence, such as being deprived of that existence constitutes a loss for him ”.In this way, they argue that "it is not possible to harm a newborn by preventing him from developing the potential to become a person in a morally relevant sense."
The subject is being the subject of a long, intense and extensive debate. Researchers go further and argue that killing a newborn after delivery is not an alternative to abortion, as they claim that performing it in the early stages of pregnancy is the best option. However, they add that "if after birth any unidentified disease is detected during pregnancy; if something goes wrong during childbirth or if any economic, social or psychological circumstance changed and it would be an unbearable burden, "people should have the option of not being forced to take care of the child. They also argue that parents should be able to kill their baby if it is disabled without their knowledge before birth." children can be a unbearable burden on the family and society as a whole, when the State does not offer aid for their care ".
So how old would these postnatal abortions go? There is a time gap regarding when the moment when a human being acquires rights would be established. In Spain, for example, they must having passed 24 hours of life so that a newborn can be registered in the civil registry and so that patrimonial rights can be acquired. Therefore, when a mother loses her newborn during childbirth, is stillborn or dies within hours of birth, the legal system dehumanizes these babies deceased during the first 24 hours after delivery.
The proposals that are being opened are enormous. Who sets the limit and determines what or who is person? Would a human being with brain damage stop being a person? From when would a child become a person, for example? The comments on this article are fuming on social networks.
You can read more articles similar to The controversy over postpartum abortion, in the Postpartum On-Site category.