Philosophy Department, University of Sheffield, 45 Victoria Street, Sheffield S3 7QB, UK.
J Med Ethics. 2013 May;39(5):350-2. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100661.
In 'After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?', Giubilini and Minerva argue that infanticide should be permitted for the same reasons as abortion. In particular, they argue that infanticide should be permitted even for reasons that do not primarily serve the interests (or would-be best interests) of the newborn. They claim that abortion is permissible for reasons that do not primarily serve the interests (or would-be interests) of the fetus because fetuses lack a right to life. They argue that newborns also lack a right to life, and they conclude that therefore, the same reasons that justify abortion can justify infanticide. This conclusion does not follow. The lack of a right to life is not decisive. Furthermore, the justificatory power of a given reason is a function of moral context. Generalisations about reasons across dissimilar moral contexts are invalid. However, a similar conclusion does follow-that fetus-killing and newborn-killing are morally identical in identical moral contexts-but this conclusion is trivial, since fetuses and newborns are never in identical moral contexts.
在《死后堕胎:为什么婴儿应该活着?》一文中,朱碧林和米内瓦认为,出于与堕胎相同的理由,应该允许杀害婴儿。特别是,他们认为,即使杀害婴儿的理由不是主要为了新生儿的利益(或潜在最佳利益),也应该允许杀害婴儿。他们声称,由于胎儿没有生命权,因此可以出于不主要服务于胎儿利益(或潜在利益)的理由进行堕胎。他们认为,新生儿也没有生命权,因此,同样可以为堕胎辩护的理由也可以为杀婴辩护。这个结论是不正确的。缺乏生命权并不是决定性的。此外,给定理由的论证力是道德背景的函数。在不同的道德背景下对理由进行概括是无效的。但是,一个类似的结论确实是——在相同的道德背景下,杀死胎儿和杀死新生儿在道德上是相同的——但这个结论是琐碎的,因为胎儿和新生儿永远不可能处于相同的道德背景下。