After birth abortion?

[Mystical]

Okay guys I would like to know.. is this article biased in either direction prolife or prochoice, and whether its assertions that the conclusions made are truly based upon prochoice stance?
I guess I'm confused because the article sets up "alleged" pro-choice talking points and then says "after birth argument follows that line just a little bit more.."
Is this legitimately cohesive?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and...cide_.html

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND LIFE.
MARCH 12 2012 11:14 AM
After-Birth Abortion
The pro-choice case for infanticide. William Saletan

A Dutch baby born on Feb. 29, 2012

Photograph by Robin Utrecht/AFP/Getty Images.

Just when you thought the religious right couldn’t get any crazier, with its personhood amendments and its attacks on contraception, here comes the academic left with an even crazier idea: after-birth abortion.
No, I didn’t make this up. “Partial-birth abortion” is a term invented by pro-lifers. But “after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they :

[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.

[Tiberius]

I think most pro-choice people don't support abortion after a certain stage of the pregnancy.

All this article seems to do is attack the extremes (note that the author also attacks the religious right, who usually oppose abortion). I highly doubt many pro-choice people support after-birth abortion.

[vulcanlogician]

Egad!

[SaStrike]

Seems pro choice. The potential to have an acceptable life and then killed because the well being of the family is at risk.

So to summarise. Kill any family members that put the family at risk.

Dad:"hey kids mom is starting to drink a bit too much, lets kill her because we are gonna be at risk."

[Lucanus]

This smells a little like bullshit sensationalism. I'll look up the paper

[Mystical]

Egad!

That's literally exactly what I said! 😅

---

This smells a little like bullshit sensationalism. I'll look up the paper

Much appreciated, thank you.

---

I think most pro-choice people don't support abortion after a certain stage of the pregnancy.

All this article seems to do is attack the extremes (note that the author also attacks the religious right, who usually oppose abortion). I highly doubt many pro-choice people support after-birth abortion.

You know, I'd normally agree. But lately I have had to do a double take. Did you know that aside from Saudi Arabia and Iran, the United States is the only other country where there are states with no set minimum age at which a child can be married? Even my own state of Colorado is one with zero minimum age requirements. 

[Lucanus]

Here's the full-text link, the paper is actually free.
https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261.long

I gave it a quick skim as I'm a bit sleepy, but it doesn't look like a serious proposition, it's more of a devil's advocate kind of thing. I guess it's a good thing, after all it stimulates a reflection on the nature of personhood and stuff like that. It's all good

[Mystical]

I too am sleepy. I'll check it out tomorrow, thank you so much for finding the paper! Goodnight. 🌛⭐🌚☇🌜

[Aegon]

Infants are gross though. And stupid! I mean come on, read a book already will ya? Damn toddler

[vorlon13]

Not hard at all to find copious Scriptures that the Lord God Almighty himself is on board with this idea.


And that should be the last word on the subject.