Kay - posted on 04/07/2012 ( 7 moms have responded )
I wanted to share an article with you ladies, and hear what each of you thought of it. I've linked the article, and then I'll pull out some of the main points below. This article is an analysis of the original subject matter, but does contain a link to it.
Essentially, the article which was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, makes the following basic points:
* A newborn is not terribly more neurologically developed than a fetus in utero.
* Many birth defects are not caught prior to birth.
* Many families do not realize the emotional and financial toll of having a newborn until after birth.
* Abortions before birth are often performed for the comfort of the mother/family or due to birth defects.
The authors then jumped to the conclusion that pro-life proponents have argued for years, and liberals have denied: Aborting a "fetus" is really not terribly different from killing a newborn. The exception? The authors, rather than the logical conclusion that no pregnancy should be terminated for anything but the most dire circumstances, jump to the OPPOSITE view point. They put forth the idea that, ethically, it is okay to commit infanticide--which they term "after-birth abortion"--if the family will be caused undue emotional, financial, or physical hardship by caring for the baby.
Yes, it's an actual article. Yes, it's actually being debated, although even vehement pro-choice supporters have been disgusted by it.
What are your thoughts?