You just can’t make this stuff up. Some of the best and brightest have recently been published in the Journal of Medical Ethics asserting that recently born babies may be “aborted” after being born with no whiff of moral impropriety. The short version of the argument is that because newborns are not “actual persons” they have “no moral right to life”. I’m sure they have a very intelligent, cogent and otherwise brilliant proposal. It must be. How could anything so completely stupid be offered up to sane people as reasonable if it isn’t brilliant?
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
That such a notion should be regarded as worthy of publishing is frightening. When we disregard as newborn as “morally irrelevant” we’ve stepped into an inhuman, immoral twilight-zone.