I understand that issues like late-term abortions, public funding and parental consent are bound to be difficult to resolve between people with widely differing convictions.
But is there anyone who can read that article and not feel that in some profound way a line has been crossed? At least the Nazi term “final solution” was opaque. “After-birth abortion?” That anyone could say or print that without emotion speaks to an emptiness that is inconceivable to me. We are rightly outraged to think of Nazis listening to Bach at night while running Auschwitz during the day. And yet here we are.
This is the paper’s abstract in full:
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.
Click Here for the full article in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
Click Here for an analysis of the paper by Weekly Standard writer Andrew Ferguson.