I will just deal with the objections right up front:
This is just two whacky professors…
No it is not. This is the Journal of Medical Ethics which is a peer reviewed publication. In order for this article to appear a committee of “medical and academic professionals” had to study the piece, find it credible and agree to publish it believing that it has academic and cultural value. Academic journals are written in part to promote each others work in the academic community; meaning that those who authored it and who decided to publish it had to believe that doing so would be accepted by their peers, good for their careers etc.
The Journal of Medical Ethics doesn’t speak for all doctors…
But it speaks for enough of them. This article will be presented as evidence in abortion and infanticide cases as a defense in the courts and in the elite media. It will be bandied about by radicalized professors on campus to indoctrinate and morally confuse students.
When the American Psychological Association (APA) published in its journal a piece that was a naked attempt to normalize pedophilia; Dr. Laura Schlessinger, many state legislatures, and even the Congress of the United States spoke out and passed resolutions against this until the APA retracted.
Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say.
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
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.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
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’.