After Birth Abortions?

The whole abortion thing doesn't make logical sense...I mean think about it....the abortionists say that you can kill the baby at 8 weeks, 9 weeks, 10 weeks, 11 weeks...but then on some magic minute they say, "nope, now it's a baby and we best not kill it."  When was that magic minute?

Of course others argue that as long as the baby is still in the mom that it's the mom's body so she should be able to kill the baby up to the minute before it comes out...just like she is allowed to kill a tumor in her body at any time she chooses.

But back to the logical question....if  a woman can kill a baby in her stomach, then what do you do with preemies?  If the mom delivers a tiny baby that only weighs 2 pounds and it is in an incubator by her bedside...shouldn't she be allowed to kill that baby if she decides she doesn't want it or decides she really can't afford it?

According to this article that's exactly what some are lobbying for.

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

Here;  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/

Makes perfect sense!  If your baby is born and has Downs and you decide it would be an unbearable burden on your family, or society wouldn't accept him...then it should be your right to kill the baby.  I mean really...what if a special needs child was going to cramp your style?  Imagine the embarrassment at your college reunion!

Sorry friends, but there is going to be a special place on judgment day for those who shed innocent blood...and slaughtering babies by the millions is certainly the shedding of innocent blood.

Hat tip to Julie E.