Why appeals to the moral significance of birth are saddled with a dilemma

J Med Ethics. 2022 Jul;48(7):490-491. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107346. Epub 2021 Mar 31.

Abstract

In 'Dilemma for Appeals to the Moral Significance of Birth', we argued that a dilemma is faced by those who believe that birth is the event at which infanticide is ruled out. Those who reject the moral permissibility of infanticide by appeal to the moral significance of birth must either accept the moral permissibility of a late-term abortion for a non-therapeutic reason or not. If they accept it, they need to account for the strong intuition that her decision is wrong as well as deny the underlying normative principle that killing a viable fetus requires good reason, and not wanting to care for the child when the child could be easily placed for adoption is not a good enough reason to abort. If they reject the moral permissibility of the late-term abortion, they need to explain why her decision is wrong. Doing so, however, will undermine their own project of denying infanticide by appeal to birth. Walter Veit argues that the dilemma relies too much on intuition and does not live up to biological continuity. We explain why his criticisms are unconvincing.

Keywords: abortion; foetal viability; infanticide.

Publication types

  • Comment

MeSH terms

  • Abortion, Induced*
  • Abortion, Spontaneous*
  • Beginning of Human Life
  • Child
  • Female
  • Fetal Viability
  • Humans
  • Infanticide
  • Moral Obligations
  • Morals
  • Personhood
  • Pregnancy
  • Value of Life