After-Birth Abortion: Justifying Infanticide
If a child is born and the same circumstances are present, so it is argued, then the mother should be legally justified to have the newborn child sedated and allowed to die. This, of course, is simply “infanticide” under another name. But the researchers claim that the better expression to use, the more exact title is that of “post-natal abortion.”…The new proposal suggests that if such children were not killed before birth, they could be killed after birth. If we allow that, we have returned to the barbarism of ancient pagan Rome and of recent Nazism
Direct consequence of abortion and its root, the culture of death.
OK…. little information for you.
1. “So it is argued” - is not true. It was put forward by anti-choice (though I like to argue they’re ultimately pro-choice - see Point 8 below) philosophy post-graduates in Cambridge, UK (yeah, heard and read about this years ago, well done for picking up on it now.) who were writing a deliberately imflammatory piece of propaganda using the well-known “spiral argument” (critical thinking 101) in order to create a debate. Instead they seem to have created a bit of an outcry in Britain, which died down because of how stupid it was, and has now created a panicked standard for anti-choice bigots to stand behind.
2. The difference between babies and fetus’s is that in the first (and second - even third) trimester, the fetus is just that. In fact, it’s not even a fetus for the first 12 or so weeks. It’s a zygote. It is not a sentient being. It is not a baby, technically. (You want the fetus, then you can call it a baby, because you’re emotionally attached. If you don’t want the fetus, then it is a fetus. Either way, it is still biologically, technically and physically a fetus.)
Therefore, first trimester abortions are NOT infanticide. In fact, “infant” is the term used after a baby that has learned to sit up by itself. (Several months old)
Therefore the difference between abortion and murder is dependant on whether or not the baby has been born. That will never ever change.
After all, I could extend the philosophical argument you have found. It’s just as likely: once the parents have failed to raise their rat bastard into a model citizen, they should be able to abort their child to save from further public embarassment and expense. This would be called “Primary School Abortion”, “Secondary School Abortion” and “High School Abortion”, depending on its age.
3. Mothers that have been forced to keep the pregnancy are not going to kill the baby they give birth to. They may well dump it on a doorstep, or give it away or even bring it up to hate itself, but they will not kill it.
4. Mothers that “weren’t sure” usually have decided to keep or give up the baby by the time it’s born.
5. Mothers that are pregnant the full 9 months have usually picked out names and socks for the baby they are giving birth to. They will not be killing it because they suddenly decided “actually, my pay cheque has been cut”
6. The article you found was written by philosophy students as an experimental piece. And if they believed it themselves, they were fucking lunatics.
7. Anybody - pro-choice, pro-life or anti-choice - who thinks that what they are “proposing” (which they weren’t, if anything they were proselytising), “post-natal abortion”, is actually going to happen has a screw loose, frankly.
(8. Just a P.S: note that they say, “if the baby were not killed before birth” - i.e. if abortion is not legal and available, THEN the post-natal killing would commence. Seems like a solid argument for available abortion now, don’t you think? And maybe decent sex education for everyone? And widely available and affordable contraception? And oh, I don’t know, proper healthcare so that people don’t have to worry what will happen to them and their babies when they’re born? Your country fucking stinks. STFU.)