In the Journal of Medical Ethics it would suggest just that. Here are some excerpts. The world is getting sicker and so called science is becoming more dangerous than the Spanish Inquisition.
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.
The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.
The fetus and the newborn are potential persons
Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them persons in the sense of subjects of a moral right to life: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life.
(How the fuck do you get to decide when they appreciate their own lives? Perhaps the relief of their first breath would be appreciated, you sick fucks!)
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.
When science takes a moral objective it is no longer science. This is what is happening through out our society when we just accept any authority as our moral compass. Those who would challenge religion if they are honest, should now focus on depraved social scientist.
I thought I'd include this to show how these ideas progress. Thanks to WarLock7