Should doctors have the right to kill newborn babies because they are disabled, too expensive or simply unwanted by their mothers? At least one Oxford University academic think so, the Daily Mail reports. The main argument being because a young baby is not a real person and so killing it in the first days after birth is little different to aborting it in the womb. Opponents are calling the idea legalized infanticide, chilling and an ‘inhumane defense of child destruction’. The proponent of this idea argue that ‘after-birth abortion’ should be permissible in all cases in which abortion is because unborn child, a newborn has yet to develop hopes, goals and dreams and so, while clearly human, is not a person – someone with a moral right to life. Francesca Minerva, a philosopher and medical ethicist and person behind this radical view argues a young baby is not a real person and so killing it in the first days after birth is little different to aborting it in the womb. In contrast, parents, siblings and society have aims and plans that could be affected by the arrival of the child and their interests should come first…to bring up disabled child might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole…On these grounds, the fact that a foetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion.’…The philosopher and ethicists are also extend the same argument to a healthy baby in case of change of mother’s circumstances such as lack of financial resources and energy to care for it…They argue that while adoption might be an option, it could cause undue psychological distress to the mother. Opponents are calling the idea legalized infanticide, chilling and an ‘inhumane defense of child destruction’.