In the abortion debate, arguably, the most persuasive reasoning that abortion opponents present is the assertion that an unborn fetus is a living, human being and therefore entitled to the basic human rights as any other living person.
Abortion proponents claim that a fetus does not qualify as a “person” which, in their mind, justifies abortion according their own moral views.
Some even take this view one step further in justifying “partial-birth” abortions where the life of a fetus is terminated while at least partially out of the mother’s womb.
Up to now, I believed that partial birth abortion was the most extreme case of legal justification of murder.
I was wrong.
Earlier this year, a paper was submitted to a peer reviewed medical journal ironically called the “Journal of Medical Ethics.” The abstract of the paper “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” reads as follows:
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. 
Words cannot describe the rush of emotions that I felt as I read the abstract.
I simply could not believe what I was reading.
The fact that a human being was actually attempting to justify the killing newborn baby was astonishing. I was flabbergasted. As incredulous as I may have felt just then, what happened next was even more striking.
Whenever I read, browse the web or write code, I like to kick off a playlist on my music player to help me “get in the mood” so to speak. As I’m reading this vile text, I noticed that the song playing in the background was “Remembrances” by John Williams (theme song to the movie “Schindler’s List”). In a moment of near-epiphany, it suddenly occurred to me the last time I recalled reading a similarly malevolent justification of murder under the pretext that the subject was a “non-human”.
It was back in my collage days when I was writing a sociology paper about the Third Reich.
For the Nazis, this ideology formed the basis of their own justification for the extermination of “undesirables” – non-Aryans, especially Jews, gypsies and Slavic people who were racially grouped into what they referred to as “Untermensch” meaning “sub-humans” which, as we know, ultimately lead to the state-sponsored murder of over 6 million Jews.
Now that I have had a chance to compose myself, it really isn’t that surprising to me that liberal academics would reach this conclusion. They use the same cold logic to justify abortion. In the grand scheme of things, say for the legal distinctions, is it really different than what is legally practiced today? We live in a sick world!