Etikk I Praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics 1:51-73 (2021)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
In recent years, multifetal pregnancy reduction has increasingly been a subject of debate in Norway. The intensity of this debate reached a tentative maximum when the Legislation Department delivered their interpretative statement, Section 2 - Interpretation of the Abortion Act, in 2016 in response to a request from the Ministry of Health that the Legislation Department consider whether the Abortion Act allows for MFPR of healthy fetuses in multiple pregnancies. The Legislation Department concluded that the current abortion legislation [as of 2016] allows for MFPR subject to the constraints that the law otherwise stipulates. The debate has not subsided, and during autumn 2018 it was further intensified in connection with the Norwegian Christian Democratic "crossroads" policy and signals from the Conservatives to consider removing section 2.3c and to forbid MFPR. Many of the arguments in the MFPR debate are seemingly similar to arguments put forward in the general abortion debate, and an analysis to ascertain what distinguishes MFPR from other abortions has yet to be conducted. The aim of this article is, therefore, to examine whether there is a moral distinction between abortion and MFPR of healthy fetuses. We will cover the typical arguments emerging in the debate in Norway and exemplify them with scholarly articles from the literature. We have dubbed the most important arguments against MFPR that we have identified the harm argument, the slippery-slope argument, the intention argument, the grief argument, the long-term psychological effects for the woman argument, and the sorting argument. We conclude that these arguments do not measure up in terms of demonstrating a morally relevant difference between MFPR of healthy fetuses and other abortions. Our conclusion is, therefore — despite what several discussants seem to think — that there is no morally relevant difference between the two. Therefore, on the same conditions as we allow for abortions, we should also allow MFPR. Keywords: abortion, ethics, medical ethics, MFPR, selective MFPR.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.5324/eip.v15i1.3980 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Ethics Needs Principles—Four Can Encompass the Rest—and Respect for Autonomy Should Be “First Among Equals”.R. Gillon - 2003 - Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (5):307-312.
Motherhood and Mistakes About Defeasible Duties to Benefit.Fiona Woollard - 2018 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 97 (1):126-149.
View all 6 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Ethics of Fetal Reduction: A Reply to My Critics.Joona Räsänen - 2022 - Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (2):142-143.
Similar books and articles
Abort Og Fosterreduksjon: En Etisk Sammenligning.Silje Langseth Dahl, Rebekka Hylland Vaksdal, Mathias Barra, Espen Gamlund & Carl Tollef Solberg - 2019 - Etikk I Praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics 1:89-111.
Early and Later Abortions: Ethics and Law.Nathan Nobis - forthcoming - In Bob Fischer (ed.), Ethics Left and Right: The Moral Issues that Divide Us. Oxford University Press.
Abortion of Fetus with Down’s Syndrome: India Joins the Worldwide Controversy Surrounding Abortion Laws.Alankrita Taneja, Sharath Burugina Nagaraja, Jagadish Rao Padubidri, Mohammed Madadin & Ritesh G. Menezes - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (2):769-771.
Creation and Abortion: A Study in Moral and Legal Philosophy.Frances Myrna Kamm - 1992 - Oxford University Press.
"Common Arguments About Abortion" and "Better (Philosophical) Arguments About Abortion".Nathan Nobis & Kristina Grob - 2019 - Introduction to Ethics: An Open Educational Resource.
Stumbling on Status: Abortion, Stem Cells, and Faulty Reasoning. [REVIEW]Karen Lebacqz - 2012 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (1):75-82.
Ethics Briefings.M. Davies, S. Brannan, E. Chrispin, V. English, R. Mussell, J. Sheather & A. Sommerville - 2011 - Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (5):321-323.
Why Governments That Fund Elective Abortion Are Obligated to Attempt a Reduction in the Elective Abortion Rate.Travis Dumsday - 2016 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 13 (1):87-94.
Abortion Policy and the Argument From Uncertainty.Raymond S. Pfeiffer - 1985 - Social Theory and Practice 11 (3):371-386.
Why Ectogestation is Unlikely to Transform the Abortion Debate: A Discussion of 'Ectogestation and the Problem of Abortion'.Daniel Rodger - 2020 - Philosophy and Technology (4):1-7.
Abortion, Society, and the Law. Edited by David F. Walbert & J. Douglas Butler.David F. Walbert - 1973 - Cleveland [Ohio]Press of Case Western Reserve University.
The Ethics of Abortion: Pro-Life Vs. Pro-Choice.Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum (eds.) - 2001 - Prometheus Books.
A Pro-Choice Response to New York’s Reproductive Health Act.Bertha Alvarez Manninen - 2021 - Philosophies 6 (15):15.
Twin Pregnancy, Fetal Reduction and the 'All or Nothing Problem’.Joona Räsänen - 2022 - Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (2):101-105.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2021-06-15
Total views
9 ( #947,777 of 2,499,746 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #169,732 of 2,499,746 )
2021-06-15
Total views
9 ( #947,777 of 2,499,746 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #169,732 of 2,499,746 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads