The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.Unsurprisingly (but hysterically) the scientists complain that they're getting death threats. Hey Doc, what makes you think that you yourself are a person, subject of a moral right to life? Pot, meet kettle.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
But let's take this idea and run with it. After all, this concept is as old as time, and the the old Roman Pater Familias had life and death power over his children. And all the kids marching for gun control is pretty annoying right now, so why don't we just extend co-blogger ASM826's excellent idea of no rights for kids until they turn 21 to allow post-birth abortion of them until they are 21?
I mean, the idea is no more stupid than the one that just got published in a Journal that deigns to call itself "Medical Ethics". And scientists wonder why the public trusts them less than in years past.