IMO, this is the most interesting paragraph in the whole article.
He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.
That is the real distinction, and this is what many conservatives are arguing. They also agree that there is not a real distinction between a fetus and an infant, and they consider it murder in both cases.
When surveyed, over 95% of people will agree that "aborting" a child after birth is horrifying. Indeed, there is already a huge debate about supposed "partial birth" abortion. Arguments like this don't come from conservatives, nor do they come from normal liberals. They come from extreme pro-choice liberals.
They start out arguing that an embryo is not a viable person and can be aborted whenever. They are supported in this argument by the entirety of the liberal constituency. Then they argue that until a fetus could survive outside the womb it is not a person, and abortion should be allowed. They are supported in this argument also, and during the early years this would allow abortion pretty much any time up until about 36 weeks gestation.
Then there is a problem, science gets better and a fetus can survive outside the womb after about 25 weeks and it is conceivable that there will be a day when that 25 weeks will become 15 weeks.
So the argument must then shift and say that as long as the fetus is at least partially unborn, then it has no right to life. This starts raising some eyebrows once people learn what a partial birth abortion entails. But many liberals who would've otherwise been horrified by such a practice, are now becoming more entrenched in the right to choose battle. They are now willing to turn a blind eye to certain aspects that they disagree with, because they must protect the right of the mother.
Then it becomes conceivable that there might be a day when maternal gestation will not be a requirement. An embryo might be implanted into an artificial womb and the fetus would grow there. Is it born yet? Or what about the embryo that is removed from the mother's womb at 10 weeks and implanted in an artificial womb. Was it born, and is it viable?
So the liberals are now forced into a definition that a personal right to life doesn't start at birth, but rather the infant is no different than the fetus. It will somehow become an actual person some time after birth, because during infancy it is still so dependent on the mother as to more or less be an extension of her, or some kind of possession.
At this point, most of the moderate liberals have stopped supporting the argument. But many still fall in line, because they are fighting for the greater cause and they think that this is all just theory.
Then we have a court case where a doctor euthanizes a two week old infant because it is discovered to have Down's Syndrome. One extreme liberal judge ends up sympathizing with the above argument and infanticide is allowed under certain conditions.
Then comes an infant with severe digestive discomfort. The mother cannot cope and sticks her baby in the freezer. In court, her lawyer argues that the digestive problems were severe enough to be considered a disability. And it goes on and on....
