Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Med Ethics. 2013 May;39(5):341-4. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100844.

Potentials and burdens: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva.

Author information

  • 1Department of Philosophy, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97273, Waco, TX 76798-7273, USA. francis_beckwith@baylor.edu

Abstract

This article responds to Giubilini and Minerva's article 'After birth abortion: why should the baby live?' published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. They argue for the permissibility of 'after-birth abortion', based on two conjoined considerations: (1) the fetus or newborn, though a 'potential person', is not an actual person, because it is not mature enough to appreciate its own interests, and (2) because we allow parents to terminate the life of a fetus when it is diagnosed with a deformity or fatal illness because of the burden it will place on the child, parent, family or society we should also allow parents to do the same to their newborn, since it is no more a person than the fetus. The author critiques this case by pointing out (a) the metaphysical ambiguity of potential personhood and (b) why the appeal to burdens is irrelevant or unnecessary.

KEYWORDS:

Abortion; Embryos and Fetuses; Newborns and Minors; Philosophical Ethics; Rights

PMID:
23637449
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for HighWire
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk