is as much a paradox as icy fire.
From The Blaze: " that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” "
"Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her."
"Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life."