So apparently two bioethicists wrote a paper which they claim explored some of the ramifications of a given definition of personhood.
And folks are up-in-arms because one of those conclusions was that infanticide would be allowable in certain circumstances. Well, that's a shocking thing to say out of context, but in a philosophical discussion following an idea through to all of its implications as a way of exploring, it seems understandable.
Now, the paper has been taken down, so we don't really know what the context was. I haven't read it, though at this point I would almost like to. In the meantime, the pro-life movement pitched a fit about the culture of death, and two nobody ethicists quoted out of context from what looks like an exploration of a what-if scenario have now become their latest dubious synecdoche for the pro-choice movement.
Interestingly, Al Mohler was among those who caught the vapors, stating that "Nothing could possibly justify the killing of a child."
Well, quite so. But ... Mohler is one of the champions of inerrancy. Which means that he believes that this passage is the inspired, completely accurate, and literally true Word of God. He's also a Calvinist, which ... well.
I mean, I'm glad that we can agree that killing babies is a Very Bad Thing, but I'd be curious to engage the thought processes by which he reconciles so basic a truth with the religion that he espouses.