I know Jude has already blogged on the subject of abortion, but this is a piece I’ve been thinking of submitting for a while now and with David Ford’s proposal to change the law in the headlines and today (Saturday) being the last day of his consultation period I think this is as good a time as I’m gonna get.
So here goes!
“After birth abortion” is a term that was coined by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. They put forward an argument to legalize “After birth abortion” that was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 2012, a link to the paper can be found here. They write:
“When circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible…. We propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
Essentially what the two philosophers have done is to back up what the pro life camp has always said; namely that there is no significant difference between the moral status of unborn babies and born babies. Giubilini and Minerva put forth the belief, that the reasons given for legal abortions, such as severe abnormalities of the fetus and risks for the physical and/or psychological health of the woman, can be just as easily applied to newborn babies. The authors argue that the killing of a newborn baby should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
If this is true I would think it would cause the pro-choice camp some discomfort, at least I hope it would. Pro-choicers are faced with a difficulty here; the logic that underpins their support for legal abortion is the very same logic that underpins support for “after birth abortion” or in other words infanticide.
I’m sure most in the pro-choice camp would show shock and outrage at this proposal but after the emotions settle can they provide a principled and rational case for their belief that killing unborn babies should be legal but killing born babies should not?
Discuss.
Very interesting analysis Kieran. I am totally against abortion in all circumstances. If abortion in certain circumstances is legalised in the North would this bring forth a debate on euthanasia being legalised in certain circumstances? My personal believe is that abortion is another word for euthanasia – it’s murder! I am of the opinion that all humans should die naturally – and assisting their death is suicide, which is morally and fundamentally wrong. Be interesting to see the feedback from the consultation period and how the government plan to proceed on this one.
Is there a difference between abortion and euthanasia apart from the age of the subject and the fact that in the latter the subject may (not will) have a say in the matter?
Hi Sherdy,
According to the paper published in the Journal for Medical Ethics, it would seem that there is a difference. Giubilini and Minerva give the following reasons for their argument:
1. “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.
2. It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.”
They go on to justify these reasons in the paper, but essentially it culminates around whether a newborn is a “person”. This is why they refer to it as “‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.”
What is your take on their argument Sherdy?
Some women occasionally do kill their new born babies as they cannot cope.
Surely the best way to prevent these situations is better sex education and contraception thus reducing the need for abortions
The Catholic church needs to change its disastrous teaching on this and join the real world
600,000 illegal abortions in the Philippines every year because contraception is a sin.
Enough with the sin nonsense..
Gio, any ideas on how to initiate “better sex education?” Through schools? As a teacher, I have seen numerous tried and tested ways of delivering sex education – although as society evidently illustrates, they have failed. Also, how would sex education change the abortion debate? Regardless of individual knowledge on sex, there still would be arguments on abortion and the viability of same. Better Sex education won’t prevent rape, fetal abnormalities or the mental state of some women.
I would fear that in the instance of abortion being legalised in certain circumstances, it would allow the floodgates to open for abortion in all circumstances. I would deem this to be a sad indictment on our society where “murder” is used against the defenceless.
TheHist
As a teacher you would no doubt have a better idea than me. My understanding is that it varies a great deal from school to school. Although there are guidelines these seem to be open to interpretation.
Kids need to learn about contraception because that is the way to reduce the need for abortion.
Better sex education may not reduce fetal abnormalities, but it could very well reduce rape if young men learn how to treat young women with respect.
I am sure we can agree that we want to see less abortion and surely promoting safe sex is more realistic than expecting hormonal kids to abstain.
You will not prevent some women from seeking abortion. If they are desperate they will look for any option including the illegal ones.
Hi gio,
Your first sentence is exactly why the two philosophers proposed “after birth abortion”. In their paper they make the case that killing a new born baby is morally equivalent to killing a foetus. Given that you suggest a better way to prevent this I assume you’d be against after birth abortion? Can I again assume you’re a ‘pro lifer’? If I’m wrong with my assumption and you are not totally against abortion, how then do you feel about applying the premisses that allow legal abortion to justify ” after birth abortion”?
And merely asserting that sin is nonsense doesn’t make it so. You will have to explain yourself.
Baldybap
Abortion is necessary, that is the bottom line. The alternative is forcing women to go through a 9 month pregnancy against their will and give birth yo a child against their will. How would you make that happen
Late term abortion is the worst possible scenario and thankfully it is rare. That is why education, easy access to contraception including the morning after pill, and removing the stigma for women who need help is the best way forward.
Do I really have to explain why the concept of sin is nonsense?
For it to be sense in any way;
1. You would have to show there is a Creator,
2. You would have to show that he/she is the Christian God rather than a cold disinterested being,
3. You would have to show that the interpretation of the scriptures we have now is correct and comprehensive in detailing the concept of sin,
4 If you want society to base its laws on this nonsense you would have to explain why, even if 1,2 and 3 are all sorted, those who wish to ignore it should be bound by religious strictures given that we supposedly have free will to reject it .
You might as well make it illegal to block up chimneys because it stops Santa delikerinng his presents.
So now would you like to explain why sin is not nonsense, or are you only playing devil’s advocate so to speak?
Gio,
Thanks for getting back to me. I don’t think you answered my question though; “…how then do you feel about applying the premises that allow legal abortion to justify “after birth abortion””? Given the logic of the argument, you seem to contradict yourself when you admit that “Abortion is necessary”, then state further down; “Late term abortion is the worst possible scenario and thankfully it is rare.” Indicating to me that you are “against after birth abortion”.
The article I wrote, as I’m sure you are aware, has a challenge to the pro-choice camp to “…provide a principled and rational case for their belief that killing unborn babies should be legal, but killing born babies should not” It is this point that I’m looking to tease out of you, should you be willing?
Regarding sin, you ask do you “really have to explain why the concept of sin is nonsense?” Well like I said in the first response; merely asserting something doesn’t make it so. So yes you do have to explain, especially if you’re looking to persuade anyone.
In your response I’m disappointed because you don’t explain anything. You state that someone else has to explain a number of points in order for it to make sense. But surely if you assert that it is nonsense, then surely it is up to you to provide this evidence from the opposite side of your 4 points?
Take the opposite of your first point:
1. What reasons do you have to think there isn’t a Creator?
Baldybap/Kieran (very confusing)
I am trying not to get into your afterbirth abortion teaser as I see it as irrelevant. No-one is suggesting killing babies as far as I know. Late term abortions are rare and we should all be working to reduce them If a womans life is at risk then that decision may have o be taken.No-one is saying that is easy. If you are arguing that the child should be given priority over the woman in that situation, well I am open to persuasion.
I note you are not responding to my general oint about abortion and I wonder how you feel about abortion in the first 12 weeks say, or even the use of the morning after pill?
I dont know if I have the energy to get into the sin debate too.
But briefly there is no objective evidence for the presence of a divine being and no objective evidence for the handing down of rules (via burning bush) from such a being.
No objective evidence for the existence of hell as punishment for sin, no objective evidence for the existence of heaven as reward. Therefore I consider it nonsense.
If believers want society to be governed by those rules it is up to them to show it is not nonsense.
Sorry for confusing you Gio. Baldybapthebarber was the pseudonym I began commenting with while reading Jude’s blog & I just decided to keep it! Plus I kinda like being a pseudo baldy!
You’re normally quite on the ball when you reply gio, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt this time. In the article I submitted, I told you of two philosophers who were proposing that killing babies should be permissible, I even put a link to their paper that was subsequently published by the Journal of Medical Ethics. I would therefore disagree that it is irrelevant, but I accept that you don’t want to get into it.
I’m not responding to your general point of abortion because it’s a totally different question from what we are discussing and I see it as irrelevant.
You may not have the energy for the sin thing and that’s fine but all I’d ask in future is not to make assertions about something you can’t back up, otherwise you leave yourself open to pedants like me!
Your argument regarding evidence and the lack thereof is typical of atheists, I’m not saying you are an atheist but I’m gonna assume you are (forgive me if you’re not). The thing about your argument though, is that it does not pass philosophical muster.
Essentially what you are saying, is that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God we should all presume that God does not exist. Please note that this presumption seems to conflate atheism with agnosticism. That’s a little nonsensical don’t you think?
What I’ve found when talking with atheists is that they sometimes re-define the word atheist to indicate merely the absence of belief in God. In doing so, this re-definition trivializes the claim of atheism, for on this definition atheism ceases to be a view, and even infants count as atheists. But we still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist.
There again the problem with your position is summed up nicely by the aphorism, beloved of forensic scientists, that “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” According to Dr William Lane Craig, a contemporary theistic pholosopher “The absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in cases in which, were the postulated entity to exist, we should expect to have more evidence of its existence than we do. With respect to God’s existence, it is incumbent on the atheist to prove that if God existed, He would provide more evidence of His existence than what we have.”
Finally, believers have shown that sin and God is not nonsense. I suggest you check out the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology to begin with. Please don’t let your current belief hold you back from believing in God.
Take Care.
Baldybap.
Baldybap
Maybe I should have refrained from commenting on your piece. The particular hypothetical situation you wanted to discuss is at one end of the scale in the abortion debate and the point I was trying to make is really at the other end, namely the need in the real world for safe early abortion facilities and overall reduction in abortions through better access to contraception.
Are you able to give us a hint as to how you feel about, say, the morning after pill?
As to sin well I am pretty sure I backed up my assertion by the simple statement that there is no evidence for such beliefs. And you have not offered any.
It is not incumbent on atheists or anyone else to prove the non existence of God. Why should they? Those who have produced a divine being from pure imagination must show that he/she is real if they want others to take it seriously.
That is a nice little bit of circular reasoning in there by the way. The absence of evidence for God is what we would expect from such a being therefore the absence of evidence reinforces our belief in him.
I had a quick look at the Blackwell lCompanion and it looks interesting alright. Is there a chapter on sin?
My first thought is that a proof that of all possible beings there must be a supreme being is not the same as saying that being is a creator never mind a God of any particular tradition.
But beyond the abstraction of that argument, in the real world all those illegal abortions continue to take place. What should we do about them?
Good question, Gio. Maybe start by looking at what an abortion is?
gio
“Maybe I should have refrained from commenting on your piece. The particular hypothetical situation you wanted to discuss is at one end of the scale in the abortion debate and the point I was trying to make is really at the other end, namely the need in the real world for safe early abortion facilities and overall reduction in abortions through better access to contraception.”
Point taken.
“Are you able to give us a hint as to how you feel about, say, the morning after pill?”
Perhaps another time. Like I said before, it’s not relevant to the topic at hand. For now I’d like to know your feelings re “after birth abortion”, but as you’ve indicated you’re not really interested, so hey ho.
“As to sin well I am pretty sure I backed up my assertion by the simple statement that there is no evidence for such beliefs. And you have not offered any.”
Pretty sure? Like I explained before the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So this does not back up your claim that sin is nonsense. I opted to refer you to the Blackwell Companion, which deals with the evidence in a thoroughly logical, cogent and rational manner. I don’t see why I should produce any evidence in itself, when I’m not the one making assertions; that burden of proof rests with you.
“It is not incumbent on atheists or anyone else to prove the non existence of God. Why should they?”
When you make a claim about something it’s only fair you back it up. If your claim is that God does not exist then it’s expected that you provide reasons for this, otherwise why should we believe you?
“Those who have produced a divine being from pure imagination must show that he/she is real if they want others to take it seriously.”
Why do you think believers “have produced a divine being from pure imagination” and what are your reasons for thinking that?
“That is a nice little bit of circular reasoning in there by the way. The absence of evidence for God is what we would expect from such a being therefore the absence of evidence reinforces our belief in him.”
Who said it “reinforces our belief in him?” The aphorism I quoted you was used to show that your argument re evidence cannot be relied upon to back up your assertion of nonsense.
“I had a quick look at the Blackwell lCompanion and it looks interesting alright. Is there a chapter on sin?”
For sin or vice – Please see pages 457, 465, 472,484, 489-492.
“My first thought is that a proof that of all possible beings there must be a supreme being is not the same as saying that being is a creator never mind a God of any particular tradition.”
Thanks for this.
“But beyond the abstraction of that argument, in the real world all those illegal abortions continue to take place. What should we do about them?”
Another time, perhaps.
I’m intrigued that you spell God with a capital “G”. Capitalizing God in such instances gives the impression that the writer is a person of faith. Are you?
Baldybap
Firstly, I am enjoying your posts, interesting stuff, though I suspect you are more interested in asking questions than answering them. But as I like to try and interrogate Jude too I guess I can’t complain too much
I capitalised God because I try to be respectful when I can, although I admit I may not always do it, depending on my mood.
I haven’t been a believer for many years. I don’t label myself as an atheist because we can’t be completely sure can we? As you say, absence of proof is not proof of absence.
I don’t think I made a claim that God does not exist did I? I certainly doubt his existence though.
The concept of sin firstly is dependent on the existence of God, specifically the Christian God.
Again no evidence exists for that particular entity.
If God is a perfect supreme being who has always been unchanging how could he have decided he wanted or needed to create us? Why create a whole universe and stick us in one tine corner of it? To me that is nonsense.
A God of perfection could not logically want or need anything. Desire indicates lack of perfection.
A God of perfection could not experience the emotions attributed to him in scripture.
Anger jealousy love etc.
God could not state that he would make the sun stand still in the sky as he would know it is the earth that moves relative to the sun.
Assuming he does exist what is the logic in him allowing all this sin?
Since we are asked to believe through faith it is therefore logically possible to honestly decide not to believe. Yet the price for making that decision, regardless of a life well lived would be an eternity in hell. To me that is nonsense.
A serial child murderer could repent on his deathbed and get into heaven, while I could do good works all my life, but because I am an adulterer I will go to hell.
To me that is nonsense.
I hope to hear your actual views on my thoughts rather than just referring me back to Blackwell.
Hi Gio,
I must admit that I too am also enjoying our conversation; it was unexpected but I suppose that has added to the enjoyment.
Thank you for your last post, it has an air of vulnerable honesty about it which I find refreshing. So since we’re being honest I suppose it would be rude of me not to tell you some of my thoughts on what you said.
First off let me introduce myself – My name is Kieran Maxwell, I’m a 33 year old Catholic and I love Jesus Christ.
Let me begin in saying that my style of reply, was purposeful throughout. Most times I engage with atheists, I’m really quite alarmed at how theologically and philosophically bankrupt they are. So by asking really simple questions in response to their assertions, I hope to get them to think about their position, and if that causes even the tiniest amount of doubt, then great, it’s something the Holy Spirit can build upon.
Now I’ve just mentioned the word doubt, as did you in your last post. Let me tell you that my middle name is Thomas, and I’m not joking. Doubt for some believers can be crippling, but for me it has spurned me to ask questions and seek answers. I’m not saying I’m doubt free, but by approaching doubt in this way it certainly isn’t a problem for me the way it used to be.
So to your post;
“The concept of sin firstly is dependent on the existence of God, specifically the Christian God.
Again no evidence exists for that particular entity.”
I’d really love to know how hard you’ve look for evidence, because there is a tremendous amount of it out there. And while I don’t claim to be able to prove God exists; what I do believe is that the case for God’s existence is more plausibly true than false. I would not do justice to the evidence by even beginning to lay it all out for you, but what I will do is provide you with some further reading, viewing and listening on this topic by some eminent philosophers. I’m confident in my faith and don’t really feel the need to answer all your questions, that is something you must do on your own. These are questions that people have been asking since forever and the good thing about that is; there is plenty of material on them. If you are even a little bit curious watch Dr Craig debate.
Philosophers; –
Dr. William Lane Craig –
• Website – http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ This is a fantastic resource.
• I would also recommend you watch debate http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/latest . Dr Craig is clear and concise and relatively straightforward.
• And for the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html This is a must read!
Dr. Alvin Plantinga (University of Notre Dame) –
The book – God, Freedom, and Evil
Dr Ronald H Nash – Book Faith & Reason. Also available via “iTunes U” is a whole catalogue of his classes on Christian apologetics. You can download “iTunes U” via the app store for free.
“If God is a perfect supreme being who has always been unchanging how could he have decided he wanted or needed to create us? Why create a whole universe and stick us in one tine corner of it? To me that is nonsense.
A God of perfection could not logically want or need anything. Desire indicates lack of perfection.”
In this section you again make a number of assumptions – you imply that the size of something is related to its importance. And you assume God desires. I believe that God is Love! And rather than desiring anything God instead decided to share his love.
Regarding the rest of your questions, in fact all of them really, I believe they can all be answered. They seem to me anyhow, to be mainly concerned with the details and not with the central truths. To quote Dr Craig “The unreliability of certain Old Testament narratives would have no impact upon the truth of theism or the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.” Your questions seem to me to be something for Christians to debate among themselves and should certainly not be obstacles to belief in mere Christianity and therefore faith in Christ. I wouldn’t get too hung up on them as they are not deal breakers. I would say park these questions for now until you decide about (1) whether or not God exists and (2) whether or not He raised Jesus from the dead. If you decide to ‘Come Home’ then you can proceed to explore your questions further.
I find it a little ironic that your namesake, Giordano Bruno, was a theist till the day he died. Though I suspect you know this and have decided to call yourself this because of what the Catholic Church did to him, would I be right?
Like I said above I’ve enjoyed our exchange; but If you would like to chat more maybe you could follow me on twitter and I’ll follow you back, that way I can send you my personal email address via twitter private message? @KieranMaxwell
I’ll say a prayer for you Gio.
Take Care & God bless.
Baldybap.
Baldybap
Thanks for the thought.
No doubt Pascal’s wager will become more tempting in my old age!
In the meantime I will struggle on in my spiritual desolation.
Take Care
Gio