I didn't even read the whole article but all I have to say is WTF!
What the hell!?!?!?
Honestly I thought I had read it wrong, and I read it again... that makes my blood boil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I see the logic. She's saying if we justify early term abortion with these factors, then they also apple to after birth abortion.
Late term abortion for non-medical reasons happens in Australia too.
FTR. They all are abhorrent to me.
This thread will be a can of worms.
I don't see the problem with investigating where and how society chooses to place its moral boundaries.
Yes the subject matter is unpleasant, but it always will be at or beyond a moral boundary."The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide ... but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands."
There is another thread on this topic, here: http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/f...-woman-serious!!
You should, of course, keep in mind that this paper was an academic ethics paper rather than some woman running around saying we should kill new born babies (which the media seems to have made it out to be).
It is a philosophical argument. They are wondering how different it is than a late term abortion.
Of course in no way could I condone an 'after birth' termination but it makes me think about why We feel so strongly against that, yet late term abortions are supposedly ok. The only difference is that one baby has taken a breath and the other one hasn't.
I get the argument too...and its just that. She isn't condoning or promoting it as an idea. More of a "why is a child in utero any different to one thats new born?" They have just chosen the most controversial way to argue!
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!