This article is from Slate, a far left publication, concerned that the fact that "moral" philosophers are starting to see that infanticide is quite "rational", and concerned that this is likely to cause outrage from anti-abortion people. The thesis for after-birth abortion:
When circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … We propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.The arguments for "After-Birth Abortion" (infanticide) proffered are:
- The moral significance of fetal development is arbitrary
- Prior to personhood, human life has no moral claims on us
- Any burden on the woman outweighs the value of the child
- The value of life depends on choice
- Discovery of a serious defect is grounds for termination
Readers of this blog should not be surprised in the least.
The gears of being a "progressive" grind in only one direction -- their "experts" will continue to define "right and wrong", "personhood" and "morality" in new, and in their minds, "more mature / rational / enlightened" ways.
They have already won on abortion and gay "marriage", but the wheel of totalitarianism will grind on unless it is met and contained by the only mechanism it bows to, which is power.