Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva have published an article titled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” on the British Journal of Medical Ethics.
The abstract reports that 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.
At first I though the authors were being facetious, but then I read the blog post Ms. Minerva wrote on the Practical Ethics web site. She’s serious. Her point is that a doctor’s conscience should not overrule his professional duties.
Didn’t the Nuremberg trials already address that issue, giving the opposite answer?
Ok, now is it me, or is this a warped view of morality?