re: #19 Simply Sarah

I understand that their main grounds for claiming this would be moral is that the newborn in question does not yet qualify as a person and is, morally speaking, effectively identical to an unborn fetus.

In fact, they could make their argument without ever mentioning fetuses. Comparison to fetuses is more of an illustration or an argument through analogy, but not the core of their argument.

What their argument actually amounts to is that newborns aren’t persons and therefore can be killed. That they’re not persons is established by them lacking aims, etc. (which is the most problematic part of the article).

Which is why the (indeed non-existent) difference between a baby 5 seconds after birth and 5 seconds before birth is not an issue for them.