Occasionally I've clashed with zealous advocates of abortion, citing the slippery slope argument that when you make something that's ethically questionable completely acceptable then people will inevitably push for extensions of it. They almost always counter with something along these lines: "We're only arguing for terminations early in the pregnancy when the foetus is not yet a person. Nobody is advocating extremely late term or after-birth abortions."
Er, well, actually they are. Ethicists Dr Alberto Giubilini and Fracesca Minerva published a creepy little article online that's outlined here:
They argued after-birth abortion should be allowed in cases when abortion would be permitted, including if a child had a defect such as Down syndrome.
Even in cases where the baby was born perfectly healthy, parents should have the right to end the life of the child if their own wellbeing was at risk.
The researchers said a newborn baby and a foetus were “morally equivalent” and both were “potential people”.
Right-to-life advocates are routinely derided as loons because they talk about abortion being "baby-killing". But surely the practice described above fits that description.
The slippery slope doesn't end there, either. Who's to say that they don't start calling certain kids, or even adults, potential people because of their low mental capacity, or even for ideological reasons. Having been around smug left-wing, deep green tossers for years on end, I know how little they think of anyone who doesn't share their nihilistic ideology. They routinely describe them as being less then human. (Not saying that they're all on the verge of committing mass murder a la Hitler or Pol Pot, mind. Just that the seeds for such behaviour are most definitely there.)
Not surprisingly, some people who have learned about the disturbing views of these quackademics are more than a tad shat off about them. A few have even made death threats.
Obviously, such reactions are way out of line. But maybe Minerva and Giubilini should ponder the possibility that these outraged zealots are actually a lot like them. Rather than arguing for the offing of infants, they see the "ethicists" themselves as mere "potential people" who don't deserve to live.