While another two ethicists are suggesting that it's alright to terminate the lives of babies for a period after they've been born, if it's done for the same basic reasons an unborn baby would have been aborted, a pro-lifer points out that their stance is nothing new.
Rita Marker of the Patients Rights Council says Alberto Giubilin of Italy and Francesca Minerva of Australia likely have ethics, but "the question is what kind of ethics? And they're frightening."
Both Giubilin and Minerva agree that an unborn baby and a newborn do not have the moral status of actual persons and are consequently morally irrelevant, so what they call "after-birth abortion" should be permissible in all cases where abortion is, including in cases where the newborn is perfectly healthy.
However, Marker explains that this is nothing new. Another Australian philosopher and ethicist, Peter Singer, co-authored a book promoting it several years ago.
"If you have a child who has any type of problem that might cause difficulties for the family -- and these are such things that they described as ... hemophilia or some relatively benign conditions, not even life-threatening conditions under most circumstances -- they said that parents should be able to end that child's life for a certain length of time after birth because it would be a problem for the family," Marker details.
Giubilin and Minerva are not as well-known as Peter Singer, who has a chaired professorship at Princeton University and is teaching his views on the subject to American students. The Patients Rights Council executive director urges people not to be gullible.
Contact: Charlie Butts