Support First Things by turning your adblocker off or by making a  donation. Thanks!

The Journal of Medical Ethics recently published are article justifying the killing of newborn infants, ” After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Here is the 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.

The authors are from mainstream, establishment universities. The journal is mainstream and respected.

Hard to know what to make of this article. It’s not as bad as it seems. It doesn’t reflect the way the overwhelming majority of people think. It’s been roundly denounced, and not just by religious people.

But it’s also not a good sign. I doubt the journal would have published a moral case for slavery, or one for race-based hierarchies, not matter how well-argued. I doubt they would publish an article arguing the homosexual acts are immoral. However, when it comes to killing newborns, our academic culture thinks it a topic worthy of discussion and debate.

As I said, not a good sign.?

Comments are visible to subscribers only. Log in or subscribe to join the conversation.



Filter First Thoughts Posts

Related Articles