In the Journal of Medical Ethics, two ethicists argue plainly for the killing of babies post birth. They’re not hedging their bets. They’re saying it plain and simple. And I, for one, thank them for it.

Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, associated respectively with Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia, and with the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, in the UK, wrote a piece called “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”

I could buy the article for $30 and I was close to doing it but then I thought why am I giving these animals my money. I’d essentially be paying these “ethicists” to write more about the right of killing humans.

So, in the “abstract” that’s available for free at the site, it says:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Here’s the thing - they’re right. If you accept their premises, they’re absolutely right.

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

An ethicists job is like a magician’s. The main job of both is to distract you from the obvious. The magician uses sleight of hand to pretend to make people disappear. But when ethicists do it, people disappear for real.

It’s almost a pro-life argument in that it highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument.

These two “ethicists” seem to draw the distinction I’ve seen elsewhere of “self awareness.” But isn’t that a sliding scale? Isn’t that a bit of a judgement call? Doesn’t this also put the crosshairs on the mentally disabled or those who have suffered brain injuries?

They throw around this term “potential person” like it’s a real thing. As if it’s science. But there’s no such thing as potential persons. It’s anti-science. There’s defenseless people. Maybe that’s what they mean. In fact, isn’t that really the point. There’s defenseless people and indefensible ethicists.