<<Print>>

TWO top academics caused outrage yesterday by claiming the killing of newborn babies should be legalised. Former Oxford University research associate Francesca Minerva and Dr Alberto Giubilini argued there was no real difference between a foetus and a newborn as neither are "persons". And if they put an "unbearable burden" on their family or society � perhaps through disability � they should be killed in an "after-birth abortion". The call by the Australian-based experts appeared in the Journal of Medical Ethics, an off-shoot of the British Medical Journal. They claimed a foetus and a newborn baby have the same "moral status", adding: "It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense. "Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life." Their article added: "Both a foetus 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'." The two academics claimed "the interests of actual people over-ride the interest of merely potential people. Since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions". They did not say at what age the killing of newborns should be stopped. And they stressed they would rather talk about "after-birth abortion" than "infanticide". The article was slammed last night by Tory MP Nadine Dorries, a leading anti-abortion campaigner. She said: "This is a disgusting ethical position to take. What sane, sensible person who has ever held a newborn baby in their arms could support such a sickening position?" But Journal editor Julian Savulescu defended his decision to publish. He said: "The Journal supports sound rational argument and freedom of ethical expression." Dr Giubilini is a former Cambridge University visiting student.