After-birth abortion
"After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" is a controversial article published by Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini in Journal of Medical Ethics in 2013 (available online from 2012) arguing to call child euthanasia "after-birth abortion" and highlighting similarities between abortion and euthanasia. The article attracted media attention and several scholarly critiques. According to Michael Tooley, "Very few philosophical publications, however, have evoked either more widespread attention, or emotionally more heated reactions, than this article has." The argument of the article is as follows:
 Abortion is justified because of the moral status of foetuses (their shared status of 'potential persons' is not morally relevant)
 Abortion is justified when the foetus has severe abnormalities or would be an intolerable burden to its mother/family (at least when adoption is not a viable option due to not being in the best interests of actual persons)
 Newborns have the same moral status as foetuses (there are no morally relevant differences between them), if they suffer unbearably
 Newborns may be born with severe abnormalities (that cannot always be diagnosed before birth) and can be an intolerable burden on their mother/family (including when circumstances change after birth) 
 Therefore, "after-birth abortion" (euthanasia of newborns) can be justified in some circumstances

“Abortion” is the ending of a process, and in this case it refers to ending the process of pregnancy before its natural conclusion. Therefore, “after birth abortion” is a self-contradictory phrase since birth ends the pregnancy leaving no pregnancy to be aborted. It is a phrase composed of words to mask the true intent of infanticide. “In conclusion, having investigated the new concept we have concluded that the term "after birth abortion" is biologically and conceptually nonsensical.”

References

Academic freedom
2012 controversies
2013 controversies
Bioethics
Academic journal articles
Abortion debate