Post-Birth Abortion and Infanticide: The Difference Is…

17 months.

Last August, I wrote about The Partial-Birth Abortion, in which a person chooses to give birth to one twin but abort the other. Yes, it was pretty shocking to learn that’s a real thing and that this occurs has often as it does.

But that’s so 2011. With a new year comes a proposal from Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, who in the Journal of Medical Ethics, promote the idea that if an infant is born alive under circumstances which would have justified an abortion, then a “post-abortion” should be permissible.

The obvious question is this: How is aborting a child after they are born any different than outright murdering a newborn?

It used to be that a “mother’s rights” (pro-choice term) overruled a fetus’s “right to life” (pro-life term).

But now, the technically of passing through the birth canal may no longer be enough to justify survival of an infant in danger of being aborted. At least, if Giubilini and Minerva have their way, that could be the case.

It just seems too hard to believe this is an actual discussion taking place right now. I doubted the legitimacy of the conversations I was reading on Facebook about it; but then I read this well-crafted article in Slate magazine, asking why if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t.

I would like to assume this will never become a reality. I would like to assume that we as a civilized nation wouldn’t have to ever lobby our government leaders to ban a post-birth abortion. Do we really need a law to tell us this is wrong?

Every person has a moral code. We all decide in our own minds what is considered right and wrong; moral and immoral.

So I’m pretty curious, are there actually people reading this right now who support the concept of a post-birth abortion?

Don’t let me hog the stage. Don’t let me be a bully here. Please, step up and defend your case.

I’m very curious to hear an opinion other than my own very obviously biased one.

Okay, go:

Post-birth abortion and infanticide: The difference Is…


Add a Comment
Back To The Dadabase
  1. by Joe

    On April 18, 2012 at 11:56 pm

    Some proponents of malthusian eugenics have argued previously that it should be allowed to ‘abort’ a child up to 4 years old. As you know from our debate on circumcision, I’m completely for the notion that a child’s rights begin at conception. I can’t comprehend why anyone would argue that once a child is born, he or she may be terminated at the wish of the parents…

  2. by Joe

    On April 18, 2012 at 11:58 pm

    Your idea of a personal moral code intrigues me too…as a Christian, do you believe in absolute truth? If so, where does this issue fall?

  3. by Nick Shell

    On April 19, 2012 at 12:05 am

    Yes, I believe in absolute truth; thought admittedly, my concept of absolute truth can be absolutely wrong; depending on the issue.

  4. by Randall

    On April 24, 2012 at 11:24 am

    Abortion is defined as “Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus”. A newborn is no longer an embryo or a fetus. If a newborn who is deemed a burden is fair game, then anyone is fair game regardless of age. Maybe Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva should be aborted because they will have become a “burden” to society’s conscience.

  5. by Lynda

    On April 24, 2012 at 11:40 am

    “Post Birth Abortion” is just a euphemism for infanticide. I believe it is just one point on the spectrum of the “quality of life” movement which would end the lives of those judged to be impaired, i.e. Alheimer’s patients. This is all in the name of “compassion” mind you. Euthanasia for the spinal cord injured. Euthansia for the terminally ill; for the discouraged and depressed. A slippery slope indeed. Using the word “abortion” is only an attempt to enlarge the legal protection of abortion to a previously unprotected procedure.

  6. by Guest

    On April 24, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    You all realize that Guibilini and Minerva are not really promoting infanticide, but a straw man? A pretty poor one at that. I’m amazed their work made it past peer-review, given the gross fallacy..

  7. by Jodie

    On May 7, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    that is why there are laws set in place that protect mothers who do not want babies. they can walk out of the hospital and leave their baby with no wrong-doing or criminal charges what so ever. there are people who would do anything to love that baby. or if they get home and decide that they don’t want the baby, can take it to a church, fire dept, police dept and give it to a responsible adult. post birth abortion is nothing more than a legal way to murder a newborn!!!

  8. by Joe

    On May 7, 2012 at 10:01 pm

  9. by Patty

    On May 23, 2012 at 9:38 am

    I am utterly amazed that someone would actually think they have the right to decide that their child could live AFTER they have been born! To me this is no different than what Dr. Jack Kevorkian was doing and he went to jail for it, therefore, if a parent makes this type of decision for their child they to should spend some time in jail – yes, i know Dr. Jack Kevorkian help people die who “wanted” to die but regardless of how (medically assisted or not) murder is murder.

  10. by Kim

    On August 6, 2012 at 9:08 am

    That won’t get passed into law. The majority of pro choice people do not agree with that Idea, and tend to point out the law protecting safe drop off of an infant. The pro choice people I have met see no good reason to go through with a full, and many even partial, birth abortion when you can simply leave them at the hospital at that point for a parent that wants a child to care for. Then again the majority have some remote contact with reality, those politicians don’t know what that is anymore.

  11. by Christina

    On August 10, 2012 at 6:37 pm

    I am pro-choice when it comes to the mother’s health or in cases of rape or incest. Post-Birth abortion is murder. Why not pass a national Safe Haven law like Utah? You can abandon a newborn annonomously within 72 hours without being prosecuted. All you have to do is leave the baby at a hospital that is open 24/7 with a hospital worker. They will take medical care of the newborn and DCFS is called to adopt out the baby. How hard is that? There are loving homes that want and will care for that baby. But killing a baby after its born because you don’t want it? No.

  12. by Nancy

    On August 15, 2012 at 8:29 am

    There is no difference. Either way you’re destroying a human being’s life, just at a different stage of development.

  13. by Kelly

    On August 19, 2012 at 2:29 am

    They justify this as being an abortion because they do not allow the baby to completely exit the birth canal and do not cut the umbilical cord detaching baby from mom until those two things happen the baby is still considered to be a fetus. Which is an absolutely insane reasoning process!!! If it is illegal for a person to cut a baby from another womans stomach and make off with it as their own than it should be illegal for a woman to half deliver her own baby and let the doctor kill it then deliver it the rest of the way and throw it away. No humanity, morality, compassion, or common sense involved in the idea of partial birth abortion. It is just wrong. Let’s poke a hole in the back of the DR’s head and then the parents heads and suck their brains out. See how they like it.

  14. by lsturnio

    On August 22, 2012 at 8:48 am

    I can’t see how even partial birth abortion is necessary. If the baby can survive outside of the birth canal, take it away from the aborting mother, and give it to someone who wants it. It’s kind of like (forgive my crassness) garbage picking. If you don’t want something, and you throw it away, do you really care if someone else comes and takes it? Does it have to be destroyed completely just because you don’t want it? There is such a backlog of potential adoptive parents. If someone waits long enough to abort that that child can survive outside the womb, just give the child away!!!

  15. by Lisa Enlow

    On August 23, 2012 at 6:29 am

    Just thinking about this makes me nauseous, I mean I’m literally sick at the thought of deeming a living human unworthy of life! Hopefully reasonable minds will put an end to this type murder. If parents don’t want their child just give them over to people who want & love children unconditionally!

  16. by Jess mom of 9

    On August 24, 2012 at 12:50 am

    Post-birth abortion already exists. Don’t you remember the big discussions of this during the 2008 election? About Obama standing on the floor of the Illinois Senate and arguing that, if a woman wanted and abortion and the doctor agreed, but the abortion isn’t successful, their wishes should be respected by allowing the surviving baby to die. That’s why the nurse was testifying about how they would leave the living breathing infant, sometimes for hours, in a closet and check it every so often to see if it had died from lack of care yet. She just wanted permission to hold the baby, at least, while it slowly died.

  17. by chana

    On August 31, 2012 at 5:44 am

    Abortion, if it can be justified (mother’s health is in danger psychologically, physically, emotionally) – fine. I don’t like it, but fine. If the baby is still in utero, it’s basically a part of the mother. Once the baby is born, killing it is murder. The baby is now a living person, just like every other, and if the mother was immature enough or stupid enough or indecisive enough not to make a decision prior to giving birth, she can give the baby up for adoption. Then she doesn’t have to deal with the baby (or her own incompetence) and the baby has a chance at a better life. Murder is murder – a living person has a right to life, and no incompetent, cruel, immature doctor or mother is allowed to end that life. A mother who does “post-birth abortion” should be put in jail for the rest of her life, or maybe sterilized, or both.

  18. by deona

    On October 30, 2012 at 10:59 am

    Someone mentioned Kevorkian, those people were in a situation that they chose the easiest way out. That was how they CHOSE to die. Killing a child is killing a child, there is no excuse for that, not when there are SO many other options.