Fox News’ Brit Hume pointed out a story that should make everybody ill:
Hume was referencing an article at Slate outlining a hideous attempt to justify “after-birth abortion” which two “philosophers” proposed, ironically, in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.
It’s hard to believe anybody could find a way to justify that, but there are those who try.