This is unbelievable, here is the abstract from a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics called After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?:
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.
Really? This is what passes for critical thought nowadays? This paper was apparently peer reviewed before publication. For this insanity to be published in a 'medical' journal and not some fifth rate crazy blogger is unbelievable.
But what kills me is this begs the question: at what point does the newborn have moral status as an actual person? And who gets to decide that? The parent? What happens when the newborn goes through the 'terrible two's". Are they considered an actual person at that point or does the parent still have the opting to commit infanticide 'after-birth-abortion'? Or when the teenager becomes defiant? Still not a person?
I mean honestly, the authors of this paper have the arrogance to say they can pinpoint when a person becomes a person? at this point I think academia can rationalize committing just about any atrocity. The Nazi's did it to the Jews after all.
So just so I'm clear on the liberal way of thinking. Not only is it OK to have late term abortions, but now - according to these geniuses - we can also commit infanticide, all the while capital punishment is taboo. Brilliant!