A general response to the rapid response section

While I do understand why some people may have strong sentiments towards this published article, I do find it interesting how most of them are not morally backed. This is a philosophical discussion and I believe that in order to make your point known you should be able to use moral principles to respond to the article.

In order to discuss this question we must separate whether we should do something and whether something is morally wrong. For example, we should not speed on a highway, yet it is not morally wrong provided that we do not harm others’ interest. At the same time, killing animals for meat is morally wrong, yet we still do it for various reasons. Here, I argue for the author that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a infant in moral status, yet we should not be allowed to kill an infant because it will inevitably lead to multiple complications that our society and legal system may not be ready to face. One of such issue is that it is hard to draw the line between a baby with personhood and a baby without, since it is a continuous process. The legalization of this may also lead to other issues such as the permissibility of killing severely mentally impaired adults (as they do not have a personhood either).