"After-birth abortion"

Published in the Journal of Medical Ethics:  "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?"

ABSTRACT
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. ...

CONCLUSIONS
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

National Catholic Register:

Here’s the thing - they’re right. If you accept their premises, they’re absolutely right.
... It’s almost a pro-life argument in that it highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument.

Medical "ethics"? That's a long way down that slippery slope!

[Via]

Update:  See next post.