“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,” Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue in their paper entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” ...The authors say the practice should be called “after-birth abortion, rather than infanticide,” in order to “emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus – on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed – rather than to that of a child.” ...
According to Giubilini and Minerva, both an unborn fetus and a newborn child can be legitimately killed because “both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
“Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life,’” they state in their article.Let's see...permissible in "all the cases where abortion is." Since abortion is allowed for any and all reasons, does that mean the parents who wanted a boy can kill the little girl? Can parents who don't like the looks of the kid, kill the one they consider ugly? If the baby has a cleft palate or a deformed foot or any other disfigurement do they call the "after-birth abortion squad" to off the little non-person?
What kind of "ethicists" suggest this? Logical ones who realize (as pro-lifers do) that there is no difference between the baby waiting to born and the little one in the delivery room.
There are monsters among us who look like normal human beings. They believe pigs have more rights than babies; they support the murder of children up to birth; and now they think that same right should be extended after birth.
When does the right end, I wonder? Are teenagers fully human?