Infanticide for handicapped infants: sometimes it's a metaphysical dispute

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Medical Ethics
• Philosophy of Medicine

Background:

• Open discussions and defenses of infanticide for severely handicapped newborns have increased in medical ethics literature since 1973.
• A prominent argument for infanticide's permissibility is based on a concept of personhood that excludes theological considerations.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze the irresolvable nature of the dispute between infanticide proponents and religious opponents.
• To demonstrate how differing metaphysical perspectives on the infant underpin the ethical deadlock.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical analysis of ethical arguments concerning newborn infanticide.
• Examination of the role of metaphysical assumptions in shaping viewpoints on personhood and infant value.
• Comparative study of secular and theological frameworks in medical ethics debates.

Main Results:

• The conflict over infanticide is rooted in fundamentally incompatible metaphysical frameworks.
• Proponents' and opponents' views on the infant are shaped by irreconcilable metaphysical beliefs.
• Philosophical argumentation is ineffective in resolving the dispute due to this foundational disagreement.

Conclusions:

• The debate on infanticide for severely handicapped newborns is intractable due to divergent metaphysical underpinnings.
• Resolution requires addressing the underlying metaphysical differences, which lie beyond the scope of philosophical refutation.
• Theological and secular perspectives on personhood create an unbridgeable gap in the infanticide ethics discourse.