After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?
Having an abortion is up to the parents and their beliefs. All women have the right to have an abortion regardless of the fetuses’ health. In the article I chose, the author goes on to say that if you can abort a fetus, healthy or not, than you should be able to abort a baby after birth regardless of its state of health. Giving a child up for adoption is not always in the best interest of the parents. I am not for or against this. I put long thought into this and I could not decide if I agree or disagree. The thought is disturbing but the points made by this author sound valid. I wouldn’t know what I would choose unless I was actually put in this position. Fetuses and newborns have the same moral status as an actual person so what would be so different?
There are many reasons why a woman would choose to have an abortion. Their mental and physical state after they would have to care for a child that they were unable to or did not want to care for is one reason. Another reason could be if the fetus was known to have severe abnormalities found through testing and ultrasounds while the mother was pregnant. Some women however cannot handle having a child at all, regardless of the health condition of the fetus or baby. The author chose two different scenarios to give an example of why a woman might have an abortion. The first scenario was that if the fetus was going to be disabled when born it would be a risk to the mother’s mental health. The second scenario was if the mother lost her partner while pregnant and felt that she was not capable of caring for a child by herself. The author of this journal is trying to prove that killing a newborn should be allowed in all cases where abortion is allowed, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
When the conditions arise that justify having an abortion, it should be the same for after-birth abortion. If a disease or disability was found in a fetus while the mother was pregnant and she chose to have an abortion, then a mother should be able to have the same option of after-birth abortion if the disease or disability was not found out until after the baby was born. In the state of Illinois you are able to have an abortion up to 17 ½ weeks of gestation if there are or are not any complications, and in some places up to 20 weeks. A baby already has a beating heart at that point, so if you can have an abortion and kill a baby inside of you, what is the difference of killing the baby after birth? Yes, it is disgusting, and gruesome to think about, but when you look at the big picture what is the difference? Either way you are still stopping a beating heart whether it is in or out of a mother’s womb.
Most abnormalities cannot be found during prenatal testing. Even if a disease or abnormality is genetic and runs in the baby’s family it can still be unknown if the baby will have the defect until after birth. In Illinois woman are allowed to have an abortion any time after 20 weeks gestation if there is a valid health reason that would affect the mother or baby(reference 1) So if the “valid health reason” wasn’t known until after the baby is born than the mother should still have the option to have an after-birth abortion. I was able to go onto an abortion website where they wrote: “One of the main differences for third trimester patients having a pregnancy terminated for a fetal anomaly is that they may wish to have an intact fetus they can view and hold as part of the grieving process. Due to patients having bonded with the pregnancy, the loss is the same as losing a 4 or 5 year old child.” (Reference 2)
If a mother could terminate her pregnancy far enough along that she can hold the baby after they kill it inside of her and give her the baby to hold as part of the grieving process, then what would be the difference of having an after birth abortion? This is why I cannot decide if I am for or...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document