Singer not only holds that abortion is permissible at all stages of pregnancy, but also notoriously defends the view that there are circumstances in which it would be moral to kill a newborn child.
Singer arrives at this position by running a familiar anti-abortion argument in reverse. The anti-abortion argument is that because a child does not undergo any transformation in the course of being born that could plausibly be supposed to give it a right not to be killed, the unborn have such a right, since to deny this would lead to the absurd conclusion that there is nothing inherently wrong in killing the newly born.
Singer reasons in the other direction and denies that both the unborn and the newly born have a right not to be killed.
At least the reasoning is sound. Something I've written about in the past, for sure, but the article was in last month's First Things on the right side of the paywall.
Labels: morality, prolife