I don't believe this article!!!!!!

Isn't it infanticide in a child under1?

You can't imagine living in Canada or the USA then Carol? Since 1988, when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that existing abortion restrictions were unconstitutional, abortion has been legal for any reason at any stage of pregnancy. Similarly, in some states of America it is legal to have an abortion up to the moment the baby is born. Most survivors of late abortions are left to die, but see here for one survivor's story.

Interesting

No ga I think the ending of a life during a stage of pregnancy when problems of whatever sort are identified, is very different from killing a child when it has been delivered and started breathing for itself. I don't even know why we entertain the notion that there is some logic to the argument.

jeni infanticide, sororicide, fratricide etc are all terms used when describing the victim/circumstance of a murder or manslaughter, but the actual offence as described on the conviction will still be murder or manslaughter.

A newborn baby already has a personality. He/she has been listening to external stimuli while in the womb and recognises the voices of his/her parents and probably their favourite music, TV programmes and so on!

My point Carol is that the logic of the argument is sound on a philosophical basis. If, the day before a baby is due to be born, it is acceptable (the law says: for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy) to abort, and therefore kill, that baby - then logically all the same reasons for permitting that abortion would still exist at the time of birth.
I'm not saying that I agree with it, I don't. But the logic, although unpalatable to many, is sound.

The logic isn't sound for me ga when the difference is that a baby will breathe for itself and be able to exist outside its mother's body. Having seen babies be delivered at 25 plus weeks, breathing for themselves, it throws into relief how wrong ending a baby's life is when it is viable. I will always advocate for a woman's right to choose to end the life of an unwanted child when it is not viable, but things change and the child starts to have rights, in my opinion, as a pregnancy develops towards the third trimester. Unwanted pregnancies have sufficient time to be ended, except in exceptional circumstances, and there will always be a threshold that people disagree on. That's my personal threshold. I don't have a problem with anyone not agreeing with me - everyone is entitled to their own view.

In terms of a life being aborted the day before a pregnancy reaches full term, because the law allows it in some countries, then 'the law is a ass.'

On that we agree Carol!

ga

What is the point of quoting American law? The limit was set at 24 weeks in the UK because it was considered that up to that stage the foetus would not be viable - in other words, it could not function as an autonomous person, but was part of its mother's body.
I realise that some babies have been kept alive (by massive intervention) at that stage of gestation, but I believe they have a very poor medical outlook. Just because a thing can be done, it does not mean that it should be done.

The killing of a child under one is only called infanticide if it is killed by its mother and she is considered to be suffering from puerperal psychosis. As has been said, it is still murder but a court might accept that the balance of her mind was disturbed.

I fear for the women of the USA as many of their hard-won rights may be threatened if one of the religious zealots is elected president. At the moment, it looks as if the biggest idiot is out of the race, but there is not much to choose between the other two. We could be back to an era of countless deaths of women undergoing illegal abortions because they are desperate.

I clicked - read the headline and regretted it.

I remember my Mum telling me that in the olden days, ie before her time (she was born 1910) midwives and doctors would routinely leave a disabled baby to die. They would not actively kill it - they would just not keep it alive. This was probably because life was too hard to give someone 24 hour care for ever.

I think the article about killing newborns was just something to stir emotions and upset people. And yes, I agree it could have a hidden anti-abortion agenda.

The anti-abortion stirrings in the USA scare me. While I hate the thought of abortion, I hate the thought even more, of women having illegal ones, or unwanted children being born into lives of rejection and misery. Abortion has to be legal to prevent so much misery, injury and maternal death.

Missed this yesterday. It is, surely, an academic exercise in logic, not propaganda one way or the other? Yes, the implications of the issues are appalling, and of course we are shocked, but as a philosophical treatise it moves inexorably from abortion to the logical progression.

However, it seems to me that the newspaper has seized upon it because it knew the response it would provoke, which is fairly typical of the press these days.

I don't accept that there is a logical progression for the reasons I have given.

It's featured in the Daily Mail online today and refers to the logic of the argument, but I think the logic is fundamentally flawed when it doesn't contrast a living, breathing baby with a non-viable foetus.

Of course it is in the Daily Mail - they won't miss a chance to have a go at women, will they?
My aunt was a State Enrolled Nurse in the 1940s and she told us that severely malformed babies were often left to die and the mother was told she had had a still born. Those were the days when doctors were able to use their commonsense when prescribing morphine to dying patients in quantities which they knew would end their suffering permanently. Shipman did untold damage to doctors' confidence.

I can't resist looking at the Daily Mail each morning, as it talks such codswallop. Throughout the day, I look up online newspapers from around the world, and get an all round view. Looking back at the Daily Mail from the perspective of global news does make me wonder how they are avoiding all the shit that's hitting fans with the media at the moment. They repeat unfounded drivel that's already been discredited in radio and TV news bulletins, but I rarely see any retractions or corrections.

I put off reading the article until today because of the way it was introduced on this thread. (Yes, I suppose you could say I was scared). I read it this morning. I didn't think it was awful. It's the kind of thing moral philosphers discuss. And so they should. And the more detached from the emotive side of such issues that they are, the better.

I don't know where I 'stand' on the issue. I'm not sure I would ever have a 'stance'. I can imagine scenarios where it would not be unethical to let a full-term baby die and I can imagine scenarios where it would be unethical.

Joan I read your post and now have the courage to say that my nana had experience of a midwife who acted in this way she would not help any baby born with disabilities or who was deemed as too poorly to survive this was common practice at the time and put down to a still birth,it happened to my nana's friend when her second child was born he was born with Downs Syndrome,some of the reasons given where that the family could never cope with some of the problems a disabled child would bring to the family and that there would be no quality of life for the child,so sad but it was the way at the time.

This discussion is a bit close to home for me at present. D2 in Sydney had a 20 week scan last week and 'they' are concerned about the formation of the nose. 2nd scan this week - still worried, so she had an amnio yesterday and has to wait 3/5 days for the result. Obviously, they are concerned about Downs although everything else - hands, neck, head are the correct size for dates and there is a strong heart beat and it is an active baby. She is young, has had 3 normal previous pregnancies and births and has 3 lovely healthy children but I can't imagine what is going through her mind as she awaits the results. Sometimes I just think we know too much. I never had a scan for any of my pregnancies and I suppose if I had had a disabled baby, we would just have dealt with the problems as they arose. I am convinced that 'they' are just being ultra cautious but it is an unbelievably worrying time, on top of everything else!

I believe we have a responsibility that goes with advancing medical knowledge and improvements in neonatal care. If we make sufficient progress that babies can be born very early and be kept alive with technology and sophisticated medicines, we have a responsibility to those babies to protect them, too. Aggressive treatment causes suffering, too.

Babies who have no quality of life, are suffering unbearable pain, and are not going to get better, should be allowed to leave this life with dignity, using the same good palliative care that terminally ill people should be given. Above all, though, they should be protected, not left to the judgement of whether being disabled or unwanted negates their potential.

I hope this public debate triggers some thinking in people who can't be bothered to use contraception. Abortions can be reduced, pregnancy in teens is going down at last, and early antenatal testing can help to reduce the need for late abortions.

To decide that an infant can be killed, after all else has failed to reduce and prevent the need for such action, does not make it ethical or a sound argument.

Gally I hope your daughter knows more very quickly so she can relax or decide which way to go next. All this technological information does cause worry when 'they' think aloud about whether there is a problem or not, but it sounds as though they are cracking on with things and hopefully she will know all she needs to know within days

Gally - what a difficult time you're having. I do agree about there being too much information sometimes. I hope the next news you get is good news. (((hug)))

Ariadne and Baggy - I was beginning to think I'd lost the plot - I'm so glad you 'get it' too.

Greatnan I was quoting Canadian/American law in response to Carol's comment. John Harris, a British philosopher, has argued that there is no huge moral difference between a baby about to be born, at the top of the birth canal, and the same baby when it has emerged into the world.

Joan, far from having a hidden ant-abortion agenda, one of the authors, Dr. Giuibilini, is actively pro-choice and has published to that effect.

Ethical and moral issues in the field of medicine always need to be addressed and discussed. It's important.

I'm with ga, Ariadne and *Bagitha on this one.

When I was expecting DD1 I was in my mid-twenties. I didn't have an amniocentesis test done, even though a patronising young registrar tried to persuade me it was my "duty" (arrogant prat!), because at that age I felt that even if I had a severely disabled baby, I would be able to cope. I had also been brought up in a catholic family and taught that it was my "duty" to cope. When I was expecting DD3 I was in my mid-forties. I had an amniocentesis test done because, by then, I wasn't at all sure I could cope with a disabled baby, nor that I necessarily "should". There is no simple answer to these things. That's what makes them moral dilemmas. If you have no philosophical doctrines – and on this subject in particular if you don't believe in the existence of souls – other than being kind and helpful to other people as far as you are able, there are very few simple rights and wrongs in life.