Two years ago, many people were shocked by the publication of a medical ethics paper arguing for the permissibility of “after-birth abortion” (i.e. killing a healthy newborn) by two bioethicists, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. Reactions to the paper were quite varied, ranging from complete denial (“Surely these guys are just playing devil’s advocate”) to total outrage, including some death threats to the authors. Thankfully, no matter where people landed on the abortion issue, most everyone disagreed with Giubilini’s and Minerva’s conclusion, including the editors of the Journal of Medical Ethics in which the paper was published. The editors attempted to justify their decision to publish the paper by saying the journal “supports freedom of ethical expression,” so long as it is in the form of a rational argument. While I agree with the editors that Giubilini and Minerva have a right to their “ethical expression,” new studies in baby cognition now cast doubt on a key assumption of their argument, which not only confirms the absurdity of their conclusion, but has the additional (and ironic) consequence of making their “ethical expression” unethical.

In their original paper, Giubilini and Minerva argue that,

‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled… Both a fetus and newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life.’  We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her… [A]ll the individuals who are not in a condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons.  Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.

The idea that fetuses and newborns are not actual persons yet is not original to Giubilini and Minerva. They’re building on arguments offered decades ago from philosophers such as Michael Tooley, Peter Singer, and others. Most of these arguments define a person as an individual who is capable of making value judgments, especially moral value judgments, or who can formulate goals. Under this definition, fetuses and newborns are not actual persons (only potential) because they’re not yet capable of doing such things…or so we thought.

CNN recently reported on studies from Yale University’s Infant Cognition Center (a.k.a. “Baby Lab”). Watch one of the absolutely fascinating reports here. Babies as young as 3 months old were entertained with puppet shows featuring both a “good” character and a “bad” character. The babies were then offered a series of choices to interact with the two puppets, such as accepting or taking a cookie from one of them. Over 80% of infants display a preference for the good puppet (this number increases to almost 90% in the youngest infants), and even choose to “punish” the bad puppet when given the chance, suggesting that babies have a sense of justice. As CNN reports, these observations lead the Yale researchers to “believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don’t create one.”

This has tremendous implications for the aforementioned view of personhood offered by Giubilini, Minerva, Tooley, and Singer. Assume, for the sake of argument, that their definition of personhood is correct (I don’t think it is, but let’s pretend). If the Yale studies are valid, then there are good reasons to believe infants are born with the ability to make value judgments. But if babies can make moral value judgments, how do we know they don’t also value their existence in some way? We don’t know. Herein lies the problem. The Yale studies raise grave doubts about the claim that newborns are not persons. So, the question then becomes, “What level of certainty that newborns are non-persons do Giubilini and Minerva need in order to ethically argue that it is okay to kill them?” To understand where I’m going with this, consider the following thought experiment:

Imagine Smith goes deer hunting with Jones. Both are aware of the possibility that there are other deer hunters in the area. Smith hears a noise in the bushes and points his rifle, ready to shoot. He hesitates and asks Jones, “What if it’s a person?” Jones replies, “The chances are slim. Go ahead and shoot.” Considering the fact that Jones does not know for sure if it’s a person, is it ethically responsible of him to tell Smith to go ahead and shoot? The obvious answer is no.

Giubilini and Minerva are in a similar position to Jones. They don’t know, with any degree of certainty, that a newborn is not a person. Yet, by publishing their paper and defending it, the authors are in a sense telling readers, “Killing a newborn is a valid option if it suits the parents’ interests. Go ahead and do it.” But given their lack of certainty about personhood (especially in light of the Yale studies), is it ethically responsible for them to do such a thing? Absolutely not. It is not an ethically neutral act to endorse killing an organism, when you are not sure if the organism is a person. Such an act is simply unethical.

I believe Giubilini and Minerva have every right to publish their opinions and present their arguments. And I condemn the death threats and hate mail they received in response to their paper. However, just because we have a right to do something does not mean it is ethically responsible to do it. The infant cognition studies raise valid doubts against Giubilini’s and Minerva’s claim that newborns are non-persons. They are simply not in a position to know if that claim is true, and therefore not in a position to ethically argue for after-birth abortion (not that they ever were). Because I hold to a different view of personhood, I’ve always thought the after-birth abortion argument was morally absurd. The Yale studies simply confirm that. Thus, we can safely call the infanticide arguments from Giubilini, Minerva, Tooley, and Singer what we’ve known them to be all along: immoral nonsense that needs to stop.


  1. Even without the research cited here which supports recognition of the cognitive functions of babies x number of months old, the premise that lies behind the support of after-birth abortion is that it is our interaction that determines the humanity of another. In other words, their personhood depends on us. This premise, along with the separation of humanity from life by the test for personhood, is most disturbing and we need to see where such ethics, or unethics, are leading us especially in terms of how we view everybody else. That is because we are all a apart of the everybody else set to someone.

  2. i have nothing constructive to say to someone who has time to debate the personhood of an infant.

  3. I’m not even sure what you mean by “they have every right to publish their opinions.” They’re not entitled to have their work published. If journals uniformly looked at their work and said “This is morally monstrous, like hell we’re going to put this in our journal,” I wouldn’t say “Hey, you’re infringing on the authors’ right to be heard!” It’s simply not the case that every opinion is prima facie equally deserving of a place at the table of civil discourse. And if the hate mail consisted of “Guess what, you’re a moral monster,” well, good for whoever sent that particular bit of “hate mail.” No, I see no point in issuing death threats, but vigorous polemic is actually called for and much needed here. Frankly I don’t even think we should be holding symposiums or having “scholarly engagement” with this stuff because it gives the illusion that we’re legitimizing the opinion. “Oh, that’s your opinion? How very interesting. Let me take the time to lay out my five-premise counter-argument so we can go back and forth and compare notes.” And quite honestly, the same SHOULD be true of abortion. The final sentence of your article here can and should be applied to murder within as well as without the womb.

    1. I think he means they should retain the right to be *considered* for publication, not an actual right to be published. That is to say their opinions shouldn’t be censored in an authoritarian fashion simply because they’re odious. It would be perfectly fine (and perhaps desirable) if no journal editor deemed their opinions worth publishing and they never saw the light of day for that reason alone. But that’s different from a “ban”.

  4. I understand the sentiments of you who insist that we should not even dignify arguments in favor of after-birth abortion with publication, or those who make such arguments with the time of day. Unfortunately—and I think this is part of the purpose of Christ and Pop Culture—this is the world we live in, and such arguments ARE being put out there. And as our culture continues its process of self-destructing, we will have more and more calls to defend against insanity. We need to 1) experience the outrage and 2) pull ourselves together and engage the battle with the best, most compelling reason, as Mr. Hoskins has done very well in the above article.

  5. “…given their lack of certainty about personhood, …is it ethically responsible for them to do such a thing?”

    This reaches towards my qualms with abortion in general, which don’t hinge particularly on personhood, but rather on the POTENTIAL of personhood, which seems like a tragic thing to extinguish.

    Or to put it another way, I think abortion is generally bad because it destroys something that it most certainly a potential human being.

    Of course, that leaves a lot of ethical wiggle room in areas like the mother’s physical well being, and whatnot, but it also waylays ethical ridiculousness like what we have above.

Comments are now closed for this article.