In an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, a pair of medical ethicists have sought to resurrect the movement for after birth abortion. Essentially, the argument is a logical extension of the modern conception of government's role in health care and the social acceptance of abortion. Essentially, they argue that new born children are no more sentient than they were as fetuses in the womb, and thus are not entitled to life. They go beyond more traditional arguments for infanticide by suggesting that such after birth abortions should not be conditional on grave or terminal medical conditions. For example, if raising a child will be a severe burden for a family and require state assistance, even a perfectly healthy newborn should be eligible for the procedure. The ethicists have received hate mail and death threats for their proposal.

ABSTRACT
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not
have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing
that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the
same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that
both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3)
adoption is not always in the best interest of actual
people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth
abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all
the cases where abortion is, including cases where the
newborn is not disabled.