(no, wait -- I think it already exists as a future person). So as long as the newborn in front of me was one of the future persons that I thought about nine months ago before getting pregnant, then it can't be harmed since it was going to exist as a person when I thought of it. Now, since this article has forced me to think about all future persons (whoever they may be), I can't justify harming/killing any of them, since I would be killing persons. Therefore people not reading this article can kill any newborn (and maybe any sleeping philosophers), but those of us who have read it are doomed to preserve the lives of all future generations -- after all, they'll be persons. It makes perfect sense. Now, is this engagement reasoned enough to pass peer review at JME? ttp://www.facebook.com/karl.johnsen Karl Johnsen You got some abusive emails??? Poor dears .... Does baby need a cookie? Grow up. seeker A defender of filthy perverts is a pervert himself. Dala The subject is interesting, but the paper is playing with semantics and deliberately using inflammatory language. Basically, the argument is false equivocation, shown here: "Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a 'person' in the sense of 'subject of a moral right to life'. We take 'person' to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of