Abstract

Giubilini and Minerva argue that, in cases where in utero abortion is currently condoned, ‘after-birth abortion’, or infanticide, ought also to be permitted.1 For example, a third-trimester abortion might be defended on the basis of foetal genetic abnormality, or through appeal to unacceptable parental suffering should the child live. On the authors’ formulation, infanticide in neonates of the same corrected age, in otherwise identical circumstances, ought also to be defended. The paper has, unsurprisingly, provoked public criticism, and even revulsion. I argue that the distress evoked is a moral consideration in its own right. Community interests ought to inform …