I am a new member here, I actually joined to ask some questions to the pro gay rights advocates however I cannot resist a good debate so here I am.
I actually read the article in the medical ethics journal I believe the title was "After Birth Abortion - Why Should The Baby Live?"
The first thing that struck me about the article was the heading "after birth abortion" now this is clearly an oxymoron as abortion can only take place while the fetus is in utero. The title should have read "Infancide - Why should the baby live?" though the debate on the subject of infantcide is not new and people have expressed their negative discernment to this subject many times, however pro infantcide advocates repeadily attempt to dress up their arguments in different ways.
Sadly in America I believe that this is actually being considered and there is information available to suggest President Obhama voted in favour of this. There are also references in the bible in favour of infantcide.
Going back to the medical ethics publication published earlier this year which I am assuming the telegraph based their article on, the argument there was that a new born was a non person for various reasons.
As already pointed out in this thread there is a substantial difference between a child in utero and an infant whos ambilical cord has been cut. The main difference being the fetus in utero is dependent on the host, if the host dies unless a medical operation is carried out the fetus will also perish. A fetus in utero is reliant on the host for survival, where as once born if the mother was to die the baby would still survive providing someone fed the baby a substitute to the mothers milk and took over the mothers role.
Also the article calls a newborn baby a non person, this is an important part of their argument as they suggest a non person can not be harmed. It is complete nonsense to suggest that a baby is non person as they do indeed have expectations, they may not have aspirations just now such as in long term life goals however they do have basic expectations for example they expect to be fed and soothed on demand.
Also the article suggesting that an infant having the staus of a non person cannot suffer harm has dangerous implications as how can we protect an infant from harm or abuse when it is being proposed that they are non persons and cannot suffer harm.
Luckily if you look at the comments that were made following the article it has been heavily discredited which in my opinion is great as I will never advocate the murder of any human life, if anything the arguments put foward in the journal were an argument against abortion.
As an after thought I would also like to raise the possibility of forced infantcide, if you look at the adoption arguments that also began as the right to adopt and what we see today are the majority of adoptions take place against the wishes of the natrual parents, I can invision this becoming the case if infantcide was to become a legal right.