Ethicists who argued that ‘after-birth abortions’ are ethical receive death threats
Newborns cannot be considered “persons,” meaning there is no moral reason not to perform “after-birth abortions,” argue a pair of Australian ethicists in a controversial paper that has drawn death threats.
The authors, both of whom have worked at Melbourne University, say that killing even a healthy newborn could be acceptable if raising the child would put an unacceptable burden on the family.
The paper in question was a purely theoretical thought exercise. But this is a topic where a whole lot of people just aren’t in the mood for thought exercises. People get kinda screwy when you start discussing killing babies.
Included in the article is one of my pet peeves on the topic: the question on “when life begins,” whether at conception or at some later point. Grrr. “Life began” *before* conception. The egg is alive, the sperm is alive. The fertilized single-cell egg is alive. the question is not when “life” begins, but when it can be considered to have human rights.