An Attempt to Provide Coherent Arguments and Answers to the Questions Raised under the Italian Case in Abortion Group 2’s Blog, by SWAN = Stephen Wan

An Attempt to Provide Coherent Arguments and Answers to the Questions Raised under the Italian Case in Abortion Group 2’s Blog, by SWAN = Stephen Wan

We may take reference of legal issues of abortion when we focus on the moral issues of abortion. On moral ground we look into aspects including but not limited to the legal. If there is a realistic case as introduced by Abortion Study Group 2, we may apply some contemporary and legal rules, examine the moral standpoints and rationales (if any), and provide arguments and moral justification for application of such rules, if possible. Let us try to make use of the reference materials already discussed in our recent new blogs, and start our ethical studies and analyses as follows:

[Thanks for Abortion Study Group 2’s Italian case as copied fully below in blue]

Our comment and opinion are typed in green. The author never assumes the viewpoints and moral discussions below should be absolute without alternatives, but will try to maintain consistency in argumentation.

 

Complexity of the moral and legal issue of abortion

This is an excellent case which demonstrates the complexity of the moral and legal issue of abortion. [Excellent, yes, agreed. Thanks.]

In April 2010, an Italian pregnant woman committed herself to abort her 22-week infant after being acknowledged that her baby was disabled.

[Within the first 24 months, even a normal healthy foetus may be aborted under absolute discretion of the mother with doctors’ certificates to support the operation, as permitted by UK law.

Reason: 

(a)   From "neurological" view of life, life only begins on acquisition of brain wave pattern between 24-27 weeks of embryo development. In the first 22 weeks, no EEG brain wave pattern, the foetus may not be taken as a person.

(b)   The mother actually need not give any reason to justify abortion at this moment of time. The foetus, being disabled if born, helps to give better excuses.

(c)   As there are so many perspectives about when the life in the womb can be regarded as a person, if no brain wave is accepted as “no person”, then such intended abortion cannot be rejected. There is no murder for there is “no person” to be killed.]

Leave alone the question of whether this act was itself moral, but as stated by the Italian law, women had the right to choose an abortion on the condition that the going-to-be aborted infant did not have a possibility to live separately from the mother.

[Italian law is similar to UK law under EC law together, I suppose.

The mother appears to be sensible and reasonable, making decision only after obtaining full diagnostic report and understanding from the doctors.

She has fulfilled the expected requirement of due diligence and care, and considered the “expected future hard (but is it a sufficient ground? Some critics may demand. But as said above, the mother actually need not justify the abortion in week 22) life of her disabled baby without dignity.

Her decision to abort the foetus should be brave and sound. (We should assume all mothers are caring mother.)

She cannot just hold wait and see attitude causing delay and facing more risks and danger.

She has committed to a pre-term abortion, better than a late-term abortion.

She should be pitied rather than condemned.

She can only rely on doctors’ assessment and judgment that the “baby at birth” will not be capable of leading an independent life.]

What made the case more entangled was that the infant miraculously survived after the abortion procedure yet was left by the doctor and other hospital staffs to die! Not until a priest went to pray beside the baby was this mishap noticed by anyone.

[(a) Either the doctors might have made wrong assessment and judgment, or this particular foetus’ physical development is exceptional- a deviation from normal.

(b) If it should be the former, the doctors might be liable to conviction of murder NOT BECAUSE OF LETTING DIE but in view of the fact that such abortive medical act aims at causing death of such foetus inside the womb has become unsuccessful in failure, and a birth ensues, yet the neonate lives awhile but dies as a result of injuries sustained in the earlier attempt to destroy it, a verdict of murder or manslaughter may ensue.

(c) The moral ground for such severe accusation of the doctors is the non-acceptance of failure in handling an abortion of a pre-term child being born alive outside from the womb, and such a child should become a person, and its destruction may be regarded as destruction of a person, and that means homicide or murder.

(d) Therefore we do not even need to ask whether “letting die” should be the ground for conviction of murder or manslaughter. In fact we should not take “letting die” as the ground in confusing with involuntary passive euthanasia, which is legally permissible.

A number of controversial arguments should be considered in this case, and they are:

1)      The infant who was aborted evidenced that it could literally live independently from its mother (outside her womb) for two days, should it then be regarded as, although premature,  a ‘real’ human being?

[Yes, it is thus defined as a person having independent respiration for 2 days. BUT the doctors can also defend that it is NOT a person because there is no EEG brain wave pattern. Human Being real or NOT is the issue. Arguments only restrict to perception of “person and personhood”.]

2)      If so, should the operation decided by the mother and performed by the doctor be considered as Intentional Murder instead of an abortion?

[Definitely NOT an intended murder because there is no person in the womb. The intention is merely abortion within the normally accepted first 24 weeks. BUT there might have been professional negligence during operation for the abortion.]

3)      Once born alive, the infant was officially an Italian citizen and should be entitled to all of the citizen rights.

[Not really as the “so-called person” outside the womb actually has no EEG brain wave, no personhood and rationality so the status as a “person’ is unsafe and in doubt.]

4)      Was it morally or legally justified for the doctor to simply walked out of the door and leave it to die?

[Yes, both morally and legally. The foetus outside womb is definitely pre-mature for further healthy development outside mother’s womb. There is NO potential, capacity and prospect of successful growth development, no hope, and a desperate case. What’s wrong is not “letting die” as it might have been regarded as “dead” without EEG brain wave. so “letting die” is a wrong  impression as there can never be “letting the dead die”.

5)      And was it morally right for its mother to abandon it?

[Yes, sorry about that. She cannot keep the “dead” forever and make it alive again.]

6)      Undoubtedly that every couples prefer their children to be able-bodied and healthy for reasons like, being healthy leads to a more satisfactory life, having a disabled children would increase the burden (mental and financial) on the couples etc, but was it a strong enough reason for the mother to abort the infant just because it failed to attain her expectation?

[Sorry, but the questions appear unfair to the mother, being just an outsider’s own speculation and private query unrelated to the mother’s own perception, feeling, and personal ground for discretionary decision. The mother has sole discretion.]

7)      If so, would it be justified for a mother to abandon her child who has experienced a tragic accident and was subsequently disabled?

[They are different. To distinguish the two scenarios is simple: that the week 22 foetus is not just disabled but arguably a recognizable “person” who is already dead without EEG brain wave despite 2 days of “independent living with heartbeat and/or respiration”. A living child after accident is still a living child if he is saved alive despite disability after the accident. The child is a living person no doubt. Of course the mother should not abandon the child morally and cannot abandon the child in breach of laws.]

CONCLUSION:

(a)   If we accept EEG wave pattern as the sign for “person” and a recognized life, yet the above tragic happening may arise and becoming disturbing, we may have to ask again whether EEG brain wave should be a reliable test for existence of “person and personhood”.

(b)   If not, then the permission for abortion within the first 24 weeks should be pushed back further to an earlier date and a shorter period after conception.

(c)   Certainly up to now, no theory on definition of “beginning of a person and personhood” is absolutely free from any flaw.

(d)   Abortion should neither be promoted nor prohibited unless there is truth in flawless theory on either side pro-life or pro-choice. So far, it appears nil.