Son Joseph didn't apply to Princeton because of their recent hire of the bloodthirsty Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, who argued that a decent pet has more of a moral claim on us than a newborn baby.
Lockstep in Singer's bloody path, two other Aussies, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, just published a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics arguing it should be legal to murder newborn babies--including those with no handicaps. They call it "after-birth abortion" and the title of their paper is "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?"
Here's the abstract:
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.
Some with consciences shaken awake have taken the journal's editor, Julian Savulescu, to task for justifying the murder of little babies. Savulescu responded at length...saying things along this line:
As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend (the article's) publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.
The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.
Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically...
Don't you love that capital "T" on the front of "Truth." Reminds me of Pilate.
Then Savulescu shows the nature of progressive minds minted by the Academy:
What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.
(TB, w/thanks to Alex C.)