djness, I would pause before dismissing these kinds of views on post-birth abortion or infanticide. Also, I would suggest doing it more respectfully next time. Something I too have to work on from time to time, when I find posts that I disagree with.
In Australia about
two years ago, we had academics from two of our most prestigious universities publish and disseminate the view that people had a moral right to kill newborns, particularly if they had any serious abnormalities that remained undetected during pregnancy. They advocated the same values as the article proposed - that infants up to a certain undefined age are not fully humans, having no conceptualisation of life. Of course, this kicked up a storm, but what was really disturbing about it all was the fact that reputable academics with campus influence were the ones that spread these views. And felt justified in doing so.
We only need look no further than
the Netherlands to see where 'curious academia' on infanticide can lead to official sanctioning of post-birth abortions. Famous for its 'progressive' stance on euthanasia, it's been possible to euthanise certain types of babies (those with disabilities and serious illness) with no legal consequences for some time now.
While extending moral justifications for pre-birth abortions to post-birth abortions is yet to find a mainstream voice, the fringes are there and will only grow louder, particularly now that the public debate between 'pro-choicers' and 'pro-lifers' has pretty much been won by the former.
As a side note, I'd also point out that while infanticide is a relatively isolated issue in most Western developed nations, it is a massive problem for certain Asian countries, particularly India and China. It makes me extremely sad that for whatever reason, whether 'philosophical' or cultural, people are finding ways to justify killing newborns.
