On 22 January 2019, New York state passed the Reproductive Health Act (RHA), which specifies three circumstances under which a healthcare provider may perform an abortion in New York: (1) the patient is within twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, (2) the fetus is non-viable, or (3) the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health. The first one, that of abortion being accessible within the first twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, is not unique to New York, as many other states allow medical professionals to provide abortions during this time. The latter two have caused significant controversy because they detail certain circumstances in which abortions would be accessible after twenty-four weeks. This paper will focus on these latter two circumstances. I will first argue that any debate or discussion about (2) must go beyond the conventional debate about the ethics of abortion and incorporate, more appropriately, a discussion on euthanasia and the ethics of end-of-life care for nascent human life. In particular, it requires us to consider the morality of non-voluntary active euthanasia for non-viable fetuses, rather than just a discussion of the ethics of late term abortions. When it comes to (3), I will argue that assessing its moral permissibility actually raises some legitimate moral concerns, even from a reproductive rights perspective. On certain readings, it seems as if condition (3) would allow for the termination of a healthy fetus for reasons not related to the mother’s physical health or life. If this is the case, I argue, the right to an abortion would be construed as a right to fetal termination, rather than just fetal evacuation. However, I will argue that there are good reasons that pro-choice advocates should interpret the right to an abortion as a right to fetal evacuation instead of termination, and if this is the case, a woman should not be able to demand the death of a healthy fetus if ending the pregnancy safely via fetal evacuation would suffice.

中文翻译：

---

对纽约《生殖健康法》的选择响应

2019年1月22日，纽约州通过了《生殖健康法》（RH​​A），其中规定了医疗服务提供者可以在纽约进行流产的三种情况：（1）患者在怀孕二十四周之内，（2 ）胎儿无法生存，或者（3）为了保护患者的生命或健康，必须进行流产。第一个是流产，可以在怀孕的前二十四周内获得，这并不是纽约独有的，因为许多其他州都允许医疗专业人员在这段时间内提供流产。后两者引起了很大的争议，因为它们详细说明了在二十四周后可进行人工流产的某些情况。本文将针对这后两种情况。首先，我将争辩说，关于（2）的任何辩论或讨论都必须超越常规的关于堕胎伦理的辩论，并更恰当地纳入关于安乐死和新生婴儿生命终止伦理的讨论。特别是，它要求我们考虑对无生命力的胎儿进行非自愿性主动安乐死的道德，而不是仅仅讨论后期堕胎的道德规范。关于（3），我将争辩说，即使从生殖权利的角度来看，评估其道德允许性实际上也会引起一些合理的道德问题。根据某些读数，似乎条件（3）会由于与母亲的身体健康或生命无关的原因而终止健康胎儿。我认为如果是这种情况，流产权将被解释为终止胎儿的权利，而不仅仅是撤离胎儿的权利。但是，我将辩称，赞成选择的倡导者应该有充分的理由将堕胎权解释为胎儿撤离权而不是解雇权，如果是这种情况，则妇女不应能够要求死亡。一个健康的胎儿，如果通过胎儿撤离安全地结束妊娠就足够了。