After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
Though the following link reveals a letter that said the following:
However, we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal. This was not made clear enough in the paper.
Excerpt from the Aleteia article:
In their open letter, Profs. Guibilini and Minerva reference Michael Tooley — and rightly so. Tooley might be regarded as the “godfather” of the modern intellectual movement to establish the ethical and intellectual case for infanticide. In 1972, one year before the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down, Tooley published “Abortion and Infanticide” in the Princeton University publication “Philosophy & Public Affairs.” In it, Tooley offered an ethical rationale for both. He expanded on this in a 1983 book by the same name, published by the Oxford University Press.
In seeking to explain the trend towards acceptance of the idea of “post-birth abortion,” one pro-life activist quoted in the campus news article singled out the works of Princeton University professor Peter Singer, which she noted are often given as reading assignments to students.
In his books “Practical Ethics” (1979, Cambridge University Press) and “Rethinking Life and Death” (1994) Singer, like Tooley before, writes in defense of both abortion abortion and infanticide:
If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants(“Practical Ethics”) .
Singer further asserts that if there is such a thing as an inherent right to life, or a right not to be killed, then certain animals have a greater claim to it than a newborn human:
*If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee is to the nonhuman animal *(“Practical Ethics”).