Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Justifying infanticide

Both logically and emotionally, the line between abortion and infanticide is less clear-cut than it

By Nelson Jones Published 01 March 2012 13:43

A paper by two medical ethicists has elicited horror, but also a certain amount of glee, among anti-abortion campaigners.

Writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue that it should be lawful to "abort" newborn babies, even for what seem to be social reasons (for example, if the parents would find it difficult to bring the child up). "Foetuses and newborns," they assert, "do not have the same moral status as actual persons." They propose the term "after-birth abortion" instead of the more commonly-used and more emotive "infanticide" for a procedure that they assert "could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where [pre-birth] abortion would be."

Their logic is quite simple. They regard the location of the foetus/infant -- inside or outside the womb -- as morally irrelevant. Both newborns and not-yet-borns are, at best, "potential" persons, lacking self-awareness and the ability "to make aims and appreciate their own life." It follows that the needs of the adults concerned, especially the mother, and perhaps of society as a whole, should take precedence over the purely notional "rights" of the person-to-be.

The argument itself is not new. Most notably, the Australian philosopher Peter Singer has advanced it arguing for allowing euthanasia of severely disabled infants. But Giubilini and Minerva have advanced it in particularly stark terms; so stark, indeed, that on first reading it the thought occurred to me that it might be a hoax perpetrated by pro-lifers. It isn't. And they go beyond even Singer by raising the possibility that entirely healthy newborns might be "aborted" in the psychological interests of adults.

The paper raises the valid question of when any abortion law should draw the line, and correctly notes that from the point of view of the "ex-foetus" (terminology in this area is a minefield) the moment of birth is as arbitrary as the law's choice of a particular gestational date, such as twenty or twenty-four weeks. But why stop there? In 1974, in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade, Philip K Dick wrote a short story, The Pre-Persons, in which he imagined a society in which no-one was considered fully human who was unable to understand basic algebra, and in which parents of younger children were able to call an abortion truck to take their troublesome offspring away to be euthanized.

A character in the story prefigures the arguments of Giubilini and Minerva with uncanny precision:

If an unborn child can be killed without due process, why not a born one? What I see in both cases is their helplessness; the organism that is killed had no chance, no ability, to protect itself.

We may indeed recoil from the concept of killing children. Protecting the weak and vulnerable is, we are all brought up to believe, a cornerstone of civilisation. Yet in other times and places infanticide has been widely practised -- often for no better reason than sex-selection. As the ancient Chinese philosopher Han Fei Tzu once put it, "As to children, a father and mother when they produce a boy congratulate one another, but when they produce a girl they put it to death." In the Roman world it was commonplace to expose unwanted infants at street corners or on rubbish dumps. Indeed, it's probably true to say that, before the advent of modern surgical procedures or antenatal diagnosis, infanticide was the functional equivalent of late-term abortion.

And many cultures have understood that the moment of birth is not necessarily decisive in determining the status of the child. To take one example, while Jewish law has never permitted infanticide, traditionally an infant is not considered fully viable (and thus a full member of the human community) until it has survived for thirty days outside the womb. Historically, such a provision makes sense: a newborn child is extremely vulnerable and in the days before modern medicine might easily die soon after birth.

Biologically, too, those who argue like Giubilini and Minerva are on firm ground. Human babies are, by most mammalian standards, born prematurely with far less autonomy than, for example, a baby cow. They are wholly dependent on adult nurture and remain so for many months. The brain, in particular, is under-developed at birth. A newborn child is in many ways still a foetus.

Nevertheless, it's not surprising that the paper has received such a strong reaction. So strong that the JME editor Julian Savulescu has written that "proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society." To many pro-life campaigners, the very fact that such an argument can be made is proof of the moral and spirtual bankruptcy of those who favour free access to abortion. Yet the authors' central claim is precisely what anti-abortionists have always argued: that there is no moral difference between a foetus and a newborn child. Either both are, or are not, fully human.

This is not how the case for abortion is usually put. As the term "pro-choice" implies, the emphasis is on the pregnant woman and her right to "do what she wants with her own body". The foetus is scarcely considered at all, which is why the moment of birth must be seen as crucial. The mother might be legally responsible for the infant, but it is in no sense still a part of her body. It's hard to argue that prohibiting infanticide impacts her bodily autonomy in the same way that restricting abortion inevitably does.

The JME paper is not, then, a logical extension of the pro-choice case. By switching the emphasis from the rights of the mother to the moral status of the foetus it in fact plays into the hands of the pro-lifers. For however logical the authors' argument, emotionally it is highly troubling. The natural revulsion it elicits can attach equally to late-term abortion, perhaps to abortion as a whole. Whatever may have occurred in other times and places, our society is one in which infanticide excites peculiar horror. And, both logically and emotionally, the line between abortion and infanticide is less clear-cut than it was in the days before incubators and ultrasound.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Abortion

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

43 comments

Mon, 2012-07-23 10:48 — Pool (not verified)

What the pro-abortion position says is that a woman's right not to carry a pregnancy to term is more important than the unborn child's right to live.
It is the difference in the rights claimed, not the claimants, which should determine this.

Mon, 2012-07-23 10:48 — Pool (not verified)

Sun, 2012-05-13 11:52 — New veracity (not verified)

There is no doubt that the unborn child can feel pain and I will not allow you to dehumanise a human by describing them as fungus. Your lifestyle is your primary concern and because you are pro promiscuity innocent children must die in excruciating pain.

Sun, 2012-05-13 17:32 — jankaas (not verified)

there is of course lots of doubt as to the ability of a developing foetus to experience pain. how come you are so certain where the medical community is not?
though seeing you posted the exact same entry a gazillion times i am already quite certain you will not be providing any verifiable evidence. do prove me wrong......

Sun, 2012-05-13 11:52 — New veracity (not verified)

Sun, 2012-05-13 11:51 — New veracity (not verified)

Sat, 2012-03-03 15:12 — David Lindsay

Everyone active in the pro-life movement knows that infanticide has been going on for decades, and for exactly the reason now openly given: between late pregnancy and the neonatal stage, the child has merely changed address.

The same is true of sex-selective abortion (and infanticide), perfectly legal if a note can be produced saying that having a child of the "wrong" sex would drive the mother round the bend, or would lay her open to physical punishment by her husband or another relative, a claim for which nothing so vulgar as evidence is expected to be produced, any more than anything so vulgar as evidence was expected to be produced by the pioneers of the anti-natal movement when they made, as their successors still make, outlandish claims about the drunkenness and violence of working-class men.

And the same is true of race-selective abortion (and infanticide), perfectly legal if a note can be produced saying that having a child of the "wrong" colour or ethnic, such as caste, background would drive the mother round the bend, or would lay her open to physical punishment by her father or another relative, a claim for which nothing so vulgar as evidence is expected to be produced, any more than anything so vulgar as evidence was expected to be produced by the pioneers of the anti-natal movement when they made, as their successors still make, outlandish claims about the drunkenness and violence of working-class men.

First sex selection has been exposed after all these years. Now infanticide has been, too. With any luck, if that is the right way of putting it, ethnic selection will be next. Better late than never, I suppose. But, in all three cases, very, very, very late indeed.

Thu, 2012-03-01 20:00 — Andrew (not verified)

These two are neo Nazis pure and simple and that is from a 53 year disabled person whose parents were told he would never live a useful life. I am currently project managing a £3M ICT Project.

Thu, 2012-03-01 20:23 — Ben Trovato (not verified)

The logic is correct. There is no moral difference between abortion and infanticide. The only difference is the location - and importantly in terms of our reaction the visibility - of the victim. With ultrasound, even that is changing.

The pro-abortion position is thus morally bankrupt.

To say that pro-lifers ignore the rights of women is inaccurate. What we say is that a woman's right not to carry a pregnancy to term is less important than the unborn child's right to life.

What the pro-abortion position says is that a woman's right not to carry a pregnancy to term is more important than the unborn child's right to life.

It is the difference in the rights claimed, not the claimants, which should determine this.

The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. The philosophers' talk of personhood is an attempt to evade this reality (nobody ever talks of personhood rights, after all!) and it will lead where it led Hitler, Stalin and all those others who assumed the right to decide who were persons worthy of life.

Sat, 2012-03-03 22:21 — Inveterate Popoff (not verified)

Here's an idea that may have considerable merit -- geared to Alberto Giubilini, John Harris, Francesca Minerva, Julian Savelescu, Peter Singer, Michael Tooley, and all of their big-brained ilk. Anyone who thinks a newborn has no right to life because it isn't a sentient human being aware of itself and with goals and aspirations . . . should herself have no right to life.

For those of you who didn't bother to read the subject paper, the authors posit that both a fetus and a newborn baby are human beings, but are at the same time non-persons. They go on to say that neither a fetus nor a newborn baby has a "moral right to life." Zero right to life. They then proceed from that set-up to say that if abortion is moral, so is infanticide -- er, umm, "after-birth abortion" -- up until some unspecified point in time at which an infant becomes an "actual person." If. Reminds me of the old saying, "If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass (when it hopped)." Well, friends and neighbors, frogs do not have wings.

Philip K. Dick was wrong about the cutoff point for being able to call in the abortion truck. The cutoff should be when the non-person in question is able to successfully pass a course in differential equations . . . with an A. As graded by me, of course. In case you've missed it, Philip K. Dick seems to have foretold what's now available in the Netherlands: mobile euthanasia vans.

PS. No, no, Olijaan. You should read the paper. Given the authors' set-up, after-birth abortions would be moral and suitable even for healthy babies. And, according to them, adoption is not a satisfactory alternative to an after-birth abortion. After all, giving up a baby for adoption might -- might -- be a painful experience and even distress the mother for years to come. Remember, the authors' premise is that newborns have zero right to life. Zero. Even less than some animals, but I'm not sure about newborn animals.

Mon, 2012-03-05 14:15 — maureen (not verified)

Prayer After Birth (Acknowledgements and Apologies to Louis MacNeice).

I am now born: please hear me,
Let not the debt collectors,
Or the rights protectors,
Or the seditious insurrectors come near me.

I am now born, comfort me,
Else I fear that the human-folk may:
With clever lies debase me,
With bad science un-race me,
And with strong drugs erase me.

I am now born: please bestow me,
Among the dancing grass, babbling brooks,
Swaying trees and singing rooks,
Undiminished bright light of grace and truth,
To restore me.

I am now born, with lullabies lull me,
With warm cuddles mull me,
With deep love sustain me, and,
With silence, not gainsay me.

Thu, 2012-03-01 22:11 — Sir Michael (not verified)

@Ben Trovato - "The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights"

While true, it is a little simplistic to think in these terms. Is the gooey lump of (basically) fungus sitting inside a woman and using her nutrients to convert itself into a human really a person at all? I say not. I would say there is a point were it becomes a person long before it emerges, but when that point is isn't something I'm qualified to contend.

So it correct to say that both personhood and the right for a woman to choose what to do with her own body are still valid (although neither in this case and I do think that the Nazi association is somewhat justified).

Abortion in general doesn't sit well with me at all. However...

"The pro-abortion position is thus morally bankrupt.

To say that pro-lifers ignore the rights of women is inaccurate. What we say is that a woman's right not to carry a pregnancy to term is less important than the unborn child's right to life."

There are people out there right now who are dying due to kidney disorder. Most of us have two healthy kidneys and could afford to donate one. Should the government hold a lottery tomorrow, and pick the "winners" for compulsory non-lethal organ donation? What about the lack of blood in blood banks? Should the government order people to attend blood donation centres or face prosecution? Your right to a pint of your own blood, which is considerably less invasive to get than having a life form grow in you for nine months, has got to be less than someones right to life. Do you think these measures would be reasonable and would you support them?

(This government will probably do this to the unemployed and chronically sick soon anyway by the looks of things)

Sun, 2012-03-04 01:14 — Attrition47

~~~~~"Foetuses and newborns," they assert, "do not have the same moral status as actual persons."~~~~~

Come back binding and Hoche, all is forgiven.

Where do these odious butchers come from?

Thu, 2012-03-01 23:43 — Fraziel1

It is said that if you use Hitler in an argument to try and make your point then you have already lost but in this case I do think it is appropriate.These two, and lets not beat about the bush here, fucking nazi idiots have written a paper that might well have come from the pen of Mengele. Absolutely unbelievable. Aborting a foetus at several weeks is not the same as having a baby then killing it. I believe they said that some parents might not be financially able to support a baby,fair enough, but surel a rational person either chooses not to get preganant or to have an abortion. You don't wait until a child is born and then kill it. I hope they get serious flak for writing this sort of neo nazi dangerous stuff.I wonder if either of them have children.Probably not. Too busy hob nobbing with their intellectual cronies.Wankers.

Fri, 2012-03-02 20:45 — John Cheese (not verified)

How bout just send the baby away on an ice floe??

Thu, 2012-03-01 14:26 — Sir Michael (not verified)

"For however logical the authors' argument, emotionally it is highly troubling"

No, it's ethically highly troubling, and it's not new either. Utilitarian nutcase Peter Singer has already written about this.

No matter how flowery or philosophically one my try to put it there is a gigantic difference between an infant lying in a hospital towel crying for milk and a biologically parasitic sponge nestling inside a ladies hoo-haa.

As I said in the abortion blog thing, I believe a woman has a right to choose whether or not her body is going to support a fetus. But that is where the debate on abortion lies, because that is what abortion is. A newborn baby can not be aborted, they can only be killed.

Thu, 2012-03-01 14:28 — redandroid (not verified)

You do a good job of explaining the argument, and for following the logic through to it's natural conclusion.

Nevertheless it is alarming to me to hear of the killing of babies discussed in such terms. In particular your paragraph about infanticide in other cultures is chilling because it could be used as justification for such a position - though I take it this is not your point.

I believe the paper is a big win for pro-life groups, and will give much mileage to anti-abortion arguments. Especially because the paper does show, perfectly logically, that there is very little difference between a post-birth and pre-birth fetus.

Thu, 2012-03-01 14:32 — BluePorcupine

Very interesting. Just on that last point, it's also true at the other end of life. Where we once had simply death which everyone knew when they saw it, we now have clinical death, brain death, artificially preserved vegetative states etc. Modern medicine has blurred these lines and is essentially making the moment of death ever more a matter of choice, but few of the people who oppose euthanasia as immoral would do the logical thing and also rail against modern medicine as a whole.

It's hard to see how we can retreat from the implications of these advances.

Mon, 2012-03-12 17:32 — charles soper (not verified)

It is sheer wickedness to justify infanticide.

Thu, 2012-03-01 14:46 — redtree (not verified)

The difference here is whether or not the baby has been born yet. If a child has been born to parents who are mentally or financially unfit to raise a child, then the baby can easily be given up for adoption/fostered/etc. A fetus can't, so until the day comes when medicine can transplant a fetus into the body of another person in a quick, easy and painless operation, then infanticide and abortion will always be hugely different.

Thu, 2012-03-01 15:07 — James (not verified)

Sir Michael makes the convincing argument for me - abortion for those of us in favour has always been about the women's right over her own body. The alternative, that others control what they do with their body, is unacceptable. I fully appreciate that such logic would allow for abortions up to the point of birth, and whilst disturbing and troubling and hopefully never necessary, yes, I would agree.

But once a foetus is born, it does legally become a person in its own right, and it is separated from the mother's body. To then consider killing it is to kill another human being, however helpless it may be. That is obscene.

It seems to me wrong to say that anti-abortionists claim to be pro-life, because they are not. Their devotion to the rights of a foetus (however well intentioned) means they are pro a particular life, but happy to ignore and deny the rights of the mother. That seems unfair and inhumane to me, again, however well intentioned. I concur that infanticide is obscene, and this paper is very unhelpful, however legitimate it is philosophically - and we should never shut down discussion just because it is uncomfortable or makes viewpoints that seem obscene.

What was of most interest to me was Nadine Dorries' disgraceful slur against humanists on Twitter. I am one and I know many and NONE of us would support the killing of children. (I suspect most would also disagree with me about how late abortion should be performed). Her rhetoric and language was unacceptable, inflammatory and whilst not surprising, she should be shunned by all who want decent people in public life.

Thu, 2012-03-01 16:11 — Sarah (not verified)

Am I ignorant to believe that abortion is only legal for choice of the woman carrying it the first trimester of the pregnancy? There is no way a fetus of 3-12 weeks is able to survive since it is still not fully formed in terms of the heart, lungs, brain even limbs. So the discussion is merely speculation of abortions done either illegally or for health reasons.

Fri, 2012-03-02 10:44 — Olijaan

Seemingly designed to provoke controversy and generate headlines, this is an entirely academic argument given that the woman would have already experienced the unwanted pregnancy and childbirth - surely the main stumbling block from the perspective of a woman being able to exercise rights over her body - and the attendant physical and social discomfort, and thus could easily give the baby up for adoption without any further distress.

While the moral equivalence the authors draw between a foetus and a new-born is interesting and rather counter-productive to their argument, if they assert that "post-birth abortion" - I can't quite believe I typed that - "could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where [pre-birth] abortion would be", then that surely would automatically limit such cases enormously, essentially to foetuses/babies suffering from severe medical defects.

How should one determine at what stage a baby develops self-awareness, and thus, as implied, personhood? By the same logic, those children and adults with mental impairments of varying severity could also be regarded as non-persons, surely. To pursue this argument to its conclusion would deeply troubling, assuming one can take the article seriously enough to do so.

Oh, and as an aside I believe the technical term for a "baby cow" is a calf. Just saying.

Sun, 2012-03-04 20:27 — andyg (not verified)

Hasn't it become a terrible endictment upon this society that the only good thing that we can say about an innocent individuals life is the the manner chosen for it's death?