☕ David Antoine Wow... Found an old article were a Washington Post journalist is seriously asking this : "'After-birth abortion': Can they be serious?"... Maybe I'm misunderstanding what she has written but she seems to have difficulties to reconcile her pro-choice stance to the natural revulsion any sane human being would have by hearing any case made for infanticide (or 'after-birth abortion' for the politically correct version apparently). I hope that insanity will never become a legal right. washingtonpost.com...
Login or register your account to reply
Martijn The real problem I am seeing here is establishing the line during the gestation process before which an abortion is allowed to take place. This line is somewhere around 22 weeks of pregnancy in the Netherlands. With modern technology it is possible to keep prematurely delivered outside of a womb until fully gestated, and the earliest surviving might have been delivered before that 22 weeks line... It is completely feasible that we will learn to support a fetus to full gestation outside a natural womb. So when are these born? When are you still allowed to terminate the gestation? Is this really bound to a location (natural womb)?
4y, 42w 5 replies
☕ David Antoine But is there really a line after the conception? Doesn't life starts when fertilization occurs? That's the biological line, that can even be in vitro. After that, there isn't any "special" event when the embryo is going from a bunch of cells to a human being. I's totally subjective. It's 22 weeks in your country and allowed at all stages in Canada. It's moral collapse in my book when you end up thinking that abortion is better then adoption. I understand abortion can be preferable in very specific cases (rape, medical complications, psychological state of the mother, diseases, etc) but "after-birth" abortion? It's mental illness...
4y, 42w 4 replies