At that point you could invent any explanation you deem fit that is "too difficult" and thus making it fitting to abort the child.

You mean like people currently do? I've had an abortion because I didn't want to have a child (it was very early in the term). The problem was solved!

All these researchers are doing is pointing out that there is little functional difference between a late term abortion and an early post birth abortion and it is somewhat arbitrary to pretend otherwise.

I consider that just as much an excuse, @Penny. I do not make a distinction between that early period or the period the article was talking about with post birth. I hold that it is a position for which there are few reasonable defenses for, if any. One might argue in the case of rape, incest, or extreme life and death circumstances, those I might hear to, but anything else I view in general as a blatant statement of "I made a mistake, which someone else should pay for." when the cost is life. The mindset of "Because I didn't want to." equally merits a response from me of, "Then that is your own fault. No sympathy here."

This evolves to the place where we see it that the article is saying they are not too different; which is true, you are knowingly and willfully engaging in the butchery of children in either case. My concern, as with many others, is that this idea that a "post birth abortion" can even be fathomed as a hypothetical possibility only guides us further down that slope.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity So if a child is going to be born with lets say:

According to the article the Netherlands alreay has such a list:

the neonate’s suffering must be unbearable or the fetus must be suffering or be likely to suffer after birth;

there must not be a prospect of improvement, and in the case of a late-term abortion, the fetal disorder must be so serious that medical experts believe that medical treatment after birth would be futile;

the parents must have been fully informed of the diagnosis and prognosis, and both the physician and the parents must be convinced that no reasonable alternative exists given the situation of the child or the fetus;

at least one other, independent physician must have examined the child or fetus and given a written opinion on compliance with the due criteria of the kind listed above;

and the termination of life or of the pregnancy must be carried out with all due care. (Euthanasia and Newborn Infants, Government of the Netherlands website (last visited Jan. 13, 2015); 2007 Directions, 2.3(a & c-e) & 4.6.2 (a-b & d-f).)

Termination cant even be considered? Sounds super moral to me, that dammed mother should have known before she got knocked up that her baby would have a neural tube defect or what have you.

As is the price of having children, @Penny. For the record, this is not a moral argument either I am making, just a logical one. If one is willing or able to have a child, intentionally or inadvertently, there is a level of risk and responsibility they accept as a parent. This is the same concept as that when one decides to drive, they willingly accept that they might die in a vehicle accident of their own doing or another's, right or wrong. They must furthermore recognize and stand for the fact that just as the child does not choose their parents, or their ability or disability if any, they do not choose the child either. So if you wish to hand the executioner's blade over to one, rather than attempt - even to failure - to make impossible scenarios work, there should not be sympathy for the parenting party either.

No less, I hold the impression that average person cannot be trusted with what is or is not "suffering" when this topic is brought about no less, given that abortion has become less about what is good for the child and more about what is good for the parent; too easy is it for them to find a way around the intent. A doctor, while they might adhere to these standards in a number of cases, can be compromised as well without extensive oversight. History has proven that with enough business, money and traffic involved, there are hands willing to be waived.

I would rather shoulder the burden on the parents who made the decision at all.

So basically being of childbearing age means accepting responsibility in the case of being raped? I mean you were walking around with a womb, what did you expect?!

I'd much prefer women have control over their own bodies, much like people have control over their own cars in all these weird driving analogies.

As for the post birth abortion bit, it does make me a little uncomfortable and I'd much rather discover the problem early and terminate. Lets use anencephaly as an example. If you detect it (and frequently we do) its almost negligent to allow the mother to give birth. It is her decision of course but I would strongly counsel termination. I suppose you might make an argument that its organs might be useful (not you but someone) but I wouldn't risk a patients life on it.

Pregnancy can be a mistake, if its early enough I don't have an ethical problem correcting it. The patient doesn't lose rights or autonomy in my mind just because she gets impregnated. She dosen't need to be 'made to live with it' when there is an easy safe and ethical solution to hand.

The responsibility is on, first, the attacker. You are attempting an argument no one is making and appealing strictly to emotion, @Penny. Second, the victim does have options beyond that if they are subject to sexual assault; an unwanted pregnancy is not an assured, guaranteed outcome. Failing to take up on those is a decision made by that person, who can weigh it only for themselves. This is one of the areas, as I stated but you apparently willfully ignored, there might be an argument for an abortion. Not only is it limited in scope, the victims in question have a valid claim, not just "Something, something, economic burden." or "I made a mistake."

People do not actually have as much "control" over their lives as they pretend to. They can mitigate threats and reduce them, eliminating some, but never them all. Putting all the authority into the hands of one person, especially who has direct charge over life and the welfare of it, should come with tremendous consequence for willful negligence. Most receiving these practices are not victims of rape or under threat for their own life, which should be mentioned. It is used as a flimsy excuse to send some message about "control over their own body".

You know what constitutes superior control over one's body? Not going to bed with a man and ignoring tenants of safe sex. A woman who cannot do this is less a woman and more a girl, because it is clear they cannot be held to the standards of an adult. I should also mention any man not willing to parent the child he fathered is a mostly spineless thing too; a boy pretending. At such a point if they err that badly, or "miscalculate" who they are involving themselves with or their life planning, no one should be at fault but them. The child should not be given the axe just because two adults spectacularly failed.

Additionally, there is no loss of rights or autonomy involved when the person in question neglected to maintain control over them. They surrendered them upon the altar of inaction as choosing to do nothing about it to prevent it is still a choice. At that point they are responsible for more than themselves; sacrificing someone else's life so to not hamper their own is not only cowardly, it is not an acceptable thing to do.

As for being "ethical solution", that is an opinion, not a fact.

Near the end of the carriage of the baby it already has some level of sapience and has long since developed sentience even of a primitive scale. Once the child is carried out that's an independent human being and anyone who tries to kill it should be the one given aforementioned post birth abortion via chainsaw.

If it is eugenics to try to avoid genetic diseases, then all those gene therapy trials are in trouble. Frankly I hope we are one day able to edit out such genetic defects, although we have a considerable way to go.

You're right, it's just.... it's hard for me not to connect this dot back to myself. If a baby is born with one leg, well, that's gonna cost you money, better just kill it. Hard for me not to react to that. And like I said, I'm not talking about a ban on abortion in general -- just with regards to this post-birth murder concept. Sparta used to do that

According to the article the Netherlands alreay has such a list:

Indeed. And it's a very specifically-targeted list which basically amounts to a mercy kill -- again I don't think anybody's happy about that, but it's reasonable.

Ah the old fetus/car loan equivalency. Seriously? How is this even remotely similar? You didn't borrow the fetus from someone...unless ... you DID?!

You borrow it from JEBUS. Naw, again, I'm talking about actual born babies which are alive. I think people who kill their pets because they're too expensive are assholes -- people who kill their actually-born living human baby, because of money, I mean..... I'm having a hard time characterizing that beyond "monstrous."

I suppose it is something that should be left up to the mothers but I personally would never be comfortable euthanizing a healthy newborn.

I dunno, once it's actually born, I don't think it's up to the mother anymore. Everything up until that point, there's a legitimate conflict of rights between the fetus and the mother, and legally speaking you can make an argument either way -- but once born, that conflict goes away. We owe that baby the world and everything in it, and no one should be allowed to just kill it (barring that honestly pretty reasonable Netherlands standard of "Suffering forever with no hope of improvement").

.

I'm fairly certain we can all be in agreement that the article makes everyone at least a little uncomfortable, and only in the most dire of circumstances would it ever be plausible.

I think if a child is born without any terrifying deficiencies then adoption should always be taken rather than euthanization, if the mother cannot afford to take care of it.

The whole idea of consenting for someone in their place is a load of bullshit except for rather extreme cases, this not being one of them. Whoever the writers of the article took their idea from should not be allowed to have children.

I guess I'm glad I'm the one likely to be counseling a sixteen year old with an unwanted pregnancy.

No one, not even the writers of the article, think late term or post birth abortions are a great options. Its very unlikely that any mother is going to bear a child and then have it killed because she thinks its going to be to expensive. She is (hopefully) going to know its expensive beforehand and abort, like many women currently do at early stages.

<Snipped quote by Penny>

You're right, it's just.... it's hard for me not to connect this dot back to myself. If a baby is born with one leg, well, that's gonna cost you money, better just kill it. Hard for me not to react to that. And like I said, I'm not talking about a ban on abortion in general -- just with regards to this post-birth murder concept. Sparta used to do that

<Snipped quote>

Indeed. And it's a very specifically-targeted list which basically amounts to a mercy kill -- again I don't think anybody's happy about that, but it's reasonable.

<Snipped quote>

You borrow it from JEBUS. Naw, again, I'm talking about actual born babies which are alive. I think people who kill their pets because they're too expensive are assholes -- people who kill their actually-born living human baby, because of money, I mean..... I'm having a hard time characterizing that beyond "monstrous."

<Snipped quote>

I dunno, once it's actually born, I don't think it's up to the mother anymore. Everything up until that point, there's a legitimate conflict of rights between the fetus and the mother, and legally speaking you can make an argument either way -- but once born, that conflict goes away. We owe that baby the world and everything in it, and no one should be allowed to just kill it (barring that honestly pretty reasonable Netherlands standard of "Suffering forever with no hope of improvement").

Shockingly I actually agree with everything you say here. I'm sure that a baby being born with one leg wouldn't qualify under the standards the Netherlands are using. That being said if the first ultrasound at ten weeks showed a baby that wasn't developing normally, I don't think it is unfair for the mother to consider aborting.

The point the authors are making is it is a little trite to say 1 day before birth you can terminate and one day afterwards you cannot because there is functionally no difference. That is a fair ethical argument to have. Most of the article is spinning out the ethical implications of existing norms rather than any sort of recommendation.

They explicitly don't consider adoption because it isn't really relevant to the question at hand.

Not just the gene therapy trials, but anyone that refuses to reproduce with someone who bears a striking resemblance to Sasquatch.

Oh noes, my preference for the handsome and college educated makes me a eugenicist! Or it would if I ever intended on having children.

Moving along.

Moving along.

Identity politics are totally fine [+]

I assume he is suggesting that a gay black man faces more discrimination than a straight one and so on. Seems fairly intuitive.

I fucking love that headline tbh.

To me it feels like, it's just...making things more discriminatory by going 'ugh, black men. Why you so lucky???" Though yeah, there is a true point which is in most societies, males are less discriminated against than females.

Good headline for the giggles. Shit content.

.

compulsory genemodding.

define "compulsory" in context.

I don't see anything wrong with removing all sorts of nasty things that can be passed on to someone just because a crazy cat lady read some conspiracy theory.