Infanticide

I had always hoped that the recognition that there is virtually no difference between a child in the womb and a newborn would strengthen the case against abortion.

I was wrong.

So-called "ethicists" recognize that the location of the new human being makes no difference in its essential nature. Instead of using this insight to reprehend the murder of the innocent, they argue that because abortion is now an accepted practice, there is no reason not to extend the mother's "right" to murder the innocent in the womb to "right" to murder their newborn babies.

Links

• "Marketing Infanticide."
• "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.

• "Singer and Savulescu: 1-2 Punch of Death."