Late-term abortion and fetal development: My debate with Ann Furedi. Photograph by David McNew/Getty Images. A month ago, I debated late-term abortion with Ann Furedi, the chief executive of BPAS (the British Pregnancy Advisory Service), at the Battle of Ideas in London. This week, Spiked published a transcript of Furedi’s remarks, prompting outcries from pro-lifers. I’ve been asked what I said in the debate and what I think of Furedi’s view.
Furedi opposes any legal time limit on abortion because she thinks the moral significance of fetal development is subjective throughout pregnancy. She’s wrong. Will Saletan writes about politics, science, technology, and other stuff for Slate. Follow In her published remarks, Furedi says there’s no “reason to think that doctors [or] women are abusing the current situation,” since “the number of women who request late abortions is very small,” and “there is no evidence that the number of women requesting late abortions is increasing.” Furedi refers to a handout I distributed before the debate. 3. Arizona decrees pregnancy starts before conception - health - 20 April 2012. On 12 April, the governor of Arizona approved a bill banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. However, the bill marks pregnancy as beginning two weeks before a child has been conceived.
On the face of it, this sounds like nonsense, but what does the science say? New Scientist takes a closer look. What does the bill actually say? The bill bans the abortion of a fetus that is at or over 20 weeks of gestation, except in cases of medical emergency. That starts the fetal clock an average of two weeks before the fetus actually exists. Does that definition of gestational age make any sense? More than you might think. "It's been the convention for generations to measure the length of pregnancy from the first day of the last period," says medical ethicist Farr Curlin of the University of Chicago, Illinois. When does a pregnancy actually begin? "It would be absurd to say a woman is pregnant who is having her period," Curlin says.
Do similar abortion laws exist elsewhere? Promoted Stories. After-Birth Abortion: The pro-choice case for infanticide. Photograph by Robin Utrecht/AFP/Getty Images. Just when you thought the religious right couldn’t get any crazier, with its personhood amendments and its attacks on contraception, here comes the academic left with an even crazier idea: after-birth abortion. No, I didn’t make this up. “Partial-birth abortion” is a term invented by pro-lifers. But “after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. [W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e 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.
Will Saletan writes about politics, science, technology, and other stuff for Slate. Follow Predictably, the article has sparked outrage. Let’s look at some of those assumptions. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ABORTION, INFANTICIDE, HUMANITY, FREE SPEECH. Is there no moral distinction between killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus? And should an academic paper that seemingly advocated the killing of newborns have ever been published? Those are the questions at the heart of a controversy that has erupted after the publication of a paper entitled ‘After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?’ In the Journal of Medical Ethics. Two Australian academics, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, argued that the moral status of a newborn baby was identical to that of a fetus. Given that most people view abortion as morally acceptable so, they argued, there is no reason not to see infanticide as morally acceptable too, even in ‘cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk’.
The paper, which would normally have been read only by a handful of moral philosophers, was picked by newspapers and websites and caused outrage worldwide. I disagree with both sides. Unnatural selection: Is evolving reproductive technology ushering in a new age of eugenics? Humanity has long dreamed of perfection, striving to be faster, stronger and brighter, pushing nature to the limit. Four centuries before people were conceived in a petri dish, Swiss alchemist Paracelsus claimed flawless little beings could be grown in pumpkins filled with urine and horse dung, but there is no record he produced a crop. With the birth of Louise Brown in 1978, the test tube finally succeeded where the pumpkin had failed, and the year she turned 11, scientists moved beyond making life in a lab: They found a way to peer into an embryo's genes and predict what that life might be like.
That ability is now morphing into a whole new approach to baby-making, one that gives people an unprecedented power to preview, and pick, the genetic traits of their prospective children. The question is, should we? During that year, fertility clinics across the country have begun to take advantage of the technology's latest tools. And science is far from finished. Sex-selection, abortion, and the pro-choice movement: Why liberals shouldn't gulp. Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images What’s a not-OK reason to get an abortion? Rape and health of the mother, you’re cool with, yes? What about this nice Jewish girl who got one in college?
That feels right. We don’t want her to ruin her future! And the 26-year-old newlywed who, crap, gets knocked up six months in and isn’t quite ready for kids yet? How does a 35-year-old single woman who wants to focus on her career strike you? Where do you land on the middle-class wife who wants to save up a little more money before starting a family?
And the mother of two who is not in the market for number three? This is pretty elementary stuff: The pro-choice movement is not just about protecting the rights of women in the direst situations to control their own bodies. Background: Today, the House of Representatives voted on PRENDA—the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act, otherwise known as “the sex-selection bill.” By all accounts, gender-motivated abortions are not a big thing in the United States. Noninvasive prenatal diagnostic tests, ethics, abortion, and insurance coverage. Photograph by Comstock. In 2003, back when such things remained unpredictable, a woman gave birth to a baby boy with Down syndrome. Her family was shocked. She had undergone the standard screening tests while pregnant—a blood test followed by an ultrasound—but the results had come back negative.
Nor did she have the risk factors associated with Down, like advanced maternal age; she was 32. The event left a deep impression on Rabinowitz. A scientist in Hong Kong had recently shown that a pregnant woman’s blood contains a small amount of fetal DNA, and the prenatal screening world was buzzing about the potential of that discovery. That test, called Parental Support, is currently in trials funded by the National Institutes of Health.
Now insurance companies are getting involved. Scientists have known for decades that the blood of a pregnant woman contains a few stray fetal cells. When Lo licensed his technology to Sequenom, he stipulated that it could not be used for sex selection. Group blogs: Journal of Medical Ethics blog » Blog Archive » Treating the Sex Offender. 13 Jun, 12 | by Iain Brassington This is an interesting story picked up by the BBC: drugs are being used to “suppress sexual thoughts and urges” among sex offenders in an experiment at HMP Whatton. It is early days, and the number taking part is small – so far fewer than 60 – but the graphs illustrating such measures as prisoners’ strength of sexual urges, or time spent thinking about sex, all show a downward trend.The Ministry of Justice is pleased with the initial evaluation of the scheme.
The treatment will continue to be available to high-risk sex offenders who are assessed as being suitable, it says. There’s all manner of questions raised by the prospect of using drugs to alter, reduce, or otherwise manipulate sex drive. At the same time, there might be questions about the moral difference between having a certain sexual fantasy in the privacy of your own head, and acting it out. The possibility of such procedures ought to be of interest to people working on moral enhancement.
A Death of One’s Own - Peter Singer. Exit from comment view mode. Click to hide this space PRINCETON – Dudley Clendinen, a writer and journalist, has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a terminal degenerative illness. In The New York Times earlier this year, he wrote movingly both of his current enjoyment of his life, and of his plan to end it when, as he put it, “the music stops – when I can’t tie my bow tie, tell a funny story, walk my dog, talk with Whitney, kiss someone special, or tap out lines like this.”
A friend told Clendinen that he needed to buy a gun. In the United States, you can buy a gun and put a bullet through your brain without breaking any laws. Last month, an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada, chaired by Udo Schüklenk, a professor of bioethics at Queens University, released a report on decision-making at the end of life. The report also offers an up-to-date review of how assistance by physicians in ending life is working in the “living laboratories” – the jurisdictions where it is legal. John Stuart Mill and the Right to Die | Against the New Taboo. The consistency of individual autonomy, as Mill outlined, indicates that just as we can live as we wish (with certain constraints), we ought to be able to die as we wish, too.
Today is human rights day in South Africa. This piece seems to me appropriate, given that I think the right to die should be the next step in universal human rights. A British man, Tony Nicklinson, wants to die. In 2005, Mr Nicklinson suffered a stroke that has left him with “locked-in syndrome”. This syndrome is, according to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, “a rare neurological disorder characterized by complete paralysis of voluntary muscles in all parts of the body except for those that control eye movement.”
Killing, whether oneself or others, is obviously a difficult topic. What Mr Nicklinson’s case demonstrates though is the inconsistency of state interventions on individuals’ activities. Destroy your lungs but don’t kill yourself Accepting the conclusion. Brendan O’Neill - Why society should never institutionalise a "right to die" On 24 April 2012, I gave a speech at St Michael’s Hospice in Yorkshire arguing against the “right to die”. The speech is published below. Over the past month, there have been two interesting and seemingly unrelated news stories about old people – two media stories about pensioners which seem to be quite distinct, but which I think are linked in quite subtle and important ways. The first news story was about the alleged problem of pensioners using up too many of society’s resources.
And the second news story was about the importance of the right to die, the importance of assisted suicide, especially at a time when we have more and more old people suffering from dementia. So the first news story was about the alleged problem of pensioner greed and the second news story was about how important it is today to give pensioners who are suffering the right to die if they want it.
Now, these stories were not reported in the same breath; they did appear not on the same pages on newspapers. Too Impaired to Rock and Roll - Time to Die? Lynne Bowyer and Grant Gillett on the Tony Nicklinson case - The Bioethics Centre Blog. A Life Worth Ending. Molecules to Medicine: When Religion Collides with Medical Care: Who Decides What Is Right for You? | Guest Blog. San Carlos Church - Vince Alongi The recent presidential candidate debates, fights over insurance coverage for contraceptives, and the Virginia and Texas legislatures’ imposition of intrusive, unnecessary ultrasounds prior to any abortions are highlighting the fundamental issue of the role of religion in health care and the separation of Church and State.
While the emphasis has been on reproductive care, the imposition of religious beliefs on access to medical care is far more wide reaching in its deleterious effect on the ability of people to choose their care and have their medical needs met. Since I first started medical school, two principles were inculcated in me as foundations of medicine. First was the importance of searching for—and following—evidence in medicine, and the large human cost of not doing so. As you read, consider: “When religion collides with your medical care, who should decide what is right for you?” Background: No Strings Attached, used with permission or Conclusion. What makes killing wrong? -- Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller -- Journal of Medical Ethics. + Author Affiliations Correspondence to Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Kenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University, Box 90432, Durham, NC 27708, USA; ws66@duke.edu Received 2 November 2011 Revised 13 December 2011 Accepted 16 December 2011 Published Online First 19 January 2012 Abstract What makes an act of killing morally wrong is not that the act causes loss of life or consciousness but rather that the act causes loss of all remaining abilities.
This account implies that it is not even pro tanto morally wrong to kill patients who are universally and irreversibly disabled, because they have no abilities to lose. Applied to vital organ transplantation, this account undermines the dead donor rule and shows how current practices are compatible with morality. Donation/procurement of organs/tissues Imagine that Abe robs Betty and shoots her in the head so that she will not testify against him if he is caught. Nonetheless, it is not enough to say that Abe harmed Betty. Objections. Controversial cyborg rat tests target brain treatments. 17 January 2012Last updated at 00:00 ET By Katia Moskvitch Technology reporter, BBC News A researcher monitors a sedated rat as part of the research project at Tel Aviv University A rat lies motionless on a sterile, spotless table.
It is alive, but heavily sedated. Closer inspection reveals that this is no ordinary rodent. Electrodes are being used to stimulate its brain, creating waveform readings on a nearby computer screen. The rat is part of a research project at Israel's Tel Aviv University psychology department. Scientists are attempting to replace part of this and other rats' brains with digital equipment, effectively turning them into cyborgs. Anti-vivisection campaigners have described the tests as "grotesque" but the researchers claim the work will eventually help them make repairs to what is possibly the world's most complex computer - the human brain. Mending malfunctions The work aims to help people with diseases such as Parkinson's or those who have suffered a stroke. Bionic rats. More Than Human? The Ethics of Biologically Enhancing Soldiers - Patrick Lin - Technology. Our ability to "upgrade" the bodies of soldiers through drugs, implants, and exoskeletons may be upending the ethical norms of war as we've understood them.
If we can engineer a soldier who can resist torture, would it still be wrong to torture this person with the usual methods? Starvation and sleep deprivation won't affect a super-soldier who doesn't need to sleep or eat. Beatings and electric shocks won't break someone who can't feel pain or fear like we do. This isn't a comic-book story, but plausible scenarios based on actual military projects today. In the next generation, our warfighters may be able to eat grass,communicate telepathically,resist stress, climb walls like a lizard, and much more. Impossible? As you might expect, there are serious moral and legal risks to consider on this path. Why Enhancements? Technology makes up for our absurd frailty. The use of human enhancement technologies by the military is not new.
The Questions Ethical and safety issues Legal and policy issues. Alex Byrne: Cheating Death. The Case for Enhancing People. Bioconservatives vs. Bioprogressives. Should We Want To Be Immortal? Should we erase painful memories? The ethics of brain boosting. "Biomedicine’s Democratic Revolution" by Stephen H Friend. Motherhood: Immaculate gestation | The Last Word On Nothing. 'Three-parent babies' cure for illness raises ethical fear | Science. Do You Really Want to Live Forever? The Population Control Holocaust. Procreation vs. Overpopulation. Regulations proposed for animal–human chimaeras. The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy. Eating Animals - Nicolette Hahn Niman - Health. Europe’s Ethical Eggs - Peter Singer.