In Support of Post-Birth Abortion

[dueda]

Professor Hawkings decided to keep on, certainly because he understood the importance of his work; his mind was so big I believe he went beyond physical limitations, but if he wanted to die sure he would find a convenient way. Problem is the rest of us, mere mortals.

Yet Hawking is dead and we're still alive, so on that basis we're all better than him now. 

Just he didn't suicide nor was put out of his misery. He could've lived longer, but we all die at some point. We are younger, healthier, not exactly better.
We are living in this uber-foo world (I more than some) and if he's back at some other existence level, he's probably waaay better than us now...

[Executive]

Just he didn't suicide nor was put out of his misery. He could've lived longer, but we all die at some point. We are younger, healthier, not exactly better. We are living in this uber-foo world (I more than some) and if he's back at some other existence level, he's probably waaay better than us now...

I don't believe in life after death, but that's a whole other topic for another discussion. 

[stts2]

I think that up to 30 days after the infant is born the parents should be able to terminate it.  If the baby has some condition that will cause it pain and suffering throughout it's life the compassionate thing to do is post-birth abortion.  

More info for those interested:

Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers3 for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.
Also medical professionals have recognised the need for guidelines about cases in which death seems to be in the best interest of the child. In The Netherlands, for instance, the Groningen Protocol (2002) allows to actively terminate the life of ‘infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering’.4
Although it is reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is against the best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down's syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’.3 But, in fact, people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.5
Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261

---

I think that up to 30 days after the infant is born the parents should be able to terminate it.  If the baby has some condition that will cause it pain and suffering throughout it's life the compassionate thing to do is post-birth abortion.  

More info for those interested:

Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers3 for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.
Also medical professionals have recognised the need for guidelines about cases in which death seems to be in the best interest of the child. In The Netherlands, for instance, the Groningen Protocol (2002) allows to actively terminate the life of ‘infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering’.4
Although it is reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is against the best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down's syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’.3 But, in fact, people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.5
Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261

OMG, Post birth abortion is murder. Period. Oh the baby is really ugly. Somebody hand me that hammer...

We have to draw the line somewhere. For sure when it pops out till the day it dies, if anybody made it die, then it's murder. From there it's a debate in all 52 states how many weeks to allow abortion. As ruled states rights by the Supreme Court. To abort after birth, we would have to change the laws on murder. And that simply aint happening. Nope, that one is set in stone.