The reason I posted this is that I thought it actually raised some fairly deep issues,
No it didn't. The authors are hacks. It's just a lazy utilitarian calculation that Singer did years before they did, and their attempts to deny newborns as persons with a right to life was a big fail-- they barely tried, and they did acknowledge newborns possessed some rights. If you're going to acknowledge the existence of rights, and at the same time say it's morally acceptable to kill infants, you better do a better job of making that case than these guys did.
Basically their entire argument for why it's okay is because they don't consider babies to be people with the same rights as older people because they cannot form thoughts in the same manner. Fuckin seriously? So now it's okay to kill schizophrenics, retards, and anyone else who processes information differently than the norm? I know, I know, you can't necessarily draw that conclusion from what they wrote-- but that's my whole point-- they didn't delve into details or attempt to justify their argument effectively.
I mean these people are supposed to be professional medical ethicists-- and yet they make an extremely ethically controversial claim spending little time backing it up with anything of substance or merit. Whatever university, foundation or medical institution is employing these people should fire them, as they're either lazy, stupid or both.
and that our resident philostophers (trained or otherwise) might actually be willing to tackle said issues.
Unnecessary. I refuted the argument within the first few posts, nothing left to "tackle." The article is crap, the argument weak and full of holes, and the authors incompetent.