Liberals... who supports post birth abortions as promoted in the linked paper?

[Slade3200]

P@triot brought up a paper written in 2012 about post birth abortions and is under the impression that mainstream liberals and leftists support these ideas. I thought I’d put it to the test. So I’m asking all liberals to state whether or not they support the ideas in the linked article. If you support the idea of post birth abortions please say why.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

"If we wanted to suggest something about policy, we would have written, for example, a comment related the Groningen Protocol (in the Netherlands), which is a guideline that permits killing newborns under certain circumstances (e.g. when the newborn is affected by serious diseases). But we do not discuss guidelines in the paper. Rather we acknowledged the fact that such a protocol exists and this is a good reason to discuss the topic (and probably also for publishing papers on this topic).

However, the content of (the abstract of) the paper started to be picked up by newspapers, radio and on the web. What people understood was that we were in favour of killing people. This, of course, is not what we suggested. This is easier to see when our thesis is read in the context of the history of the debate."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/after-birth-abortion/

 

[BULLDOG]

P@triot brought up a paper written in 2012 about post birth abortions and is under the impression that mainstream liberals and leftists support these ideas. I thought I’d put it to the test. So I’m asking all liberals to state whether or not they support the ideas in the linked article. If you support the idea of post birth abortions please say why.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Almost everything Patriot posts is either a gross misrepresentation, or an out right lie. The post you mention is just another example of that. Why are all RWNJ posts and threads based on lies?

 

[Moonglow]

Patirot never did learn to read..

Conclusions
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the foetus and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

Two considerations need to be added.

First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The definition of abortion is terminating a pregnancy. If the child has been born then the mother is no longer pregnant, and if you kill the baby, well that is murder. The phrase post birth abortion is in fact an oxymoron.

 

[Moonglow]

P@triot brought up a paper written in 2012 about post birth abortions and is under the impression that mainstream liberals and leftists support these ideas. I thought I’d put it to the test. So I’m asking all liberals to state whether or not they support the ideas in the linked article. If you support the idea of post birth abortions please say why.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Almost everything Patriot posts is either a gross misrepresentation, or an out right lie. The post you mention is just another example of that. Why are all RWNJ posts and threads based on lies?

His emotions rule over his psyche and don't allow for rational representation. As far as claiming only liberals have abortions or support abortions there is zero data kept on political alignments of those that have abortions, those demographics are not taken or desired.

 

[Moonglow]

The definition of abortion is terminating a pregnancy. If the child has been born then the mother is no longer pregnant, and if you kill the baby, well that is murder. The phrase post birth abortion is in fact an oxymoron.

They explained all dat in the thesis.

 

[Slade3200]

The definition of abortion is terminating a pregnancy. If the child has been born then the mother is no longer pregnant, and if you kill the baby, well that is murder. The phrase post birth abortion is in fact an oxymoron.

It’s all explained in the paper as to what they are referring to

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The definition of abortion is terminating a pregnancy. If the child has been born then the mother is no longer pregnant, and if you kill the baby, well that is murder. The phrase post birth abortion is in fact an oxymoron.

It’s all explained in the paper as to what they are referring to

I read it, and I recognized what it is. It is a (lame) attempt at justification. They think by referring to killing a baby born with a birth defect as a post birth abortion it sounds less like murder. And it does, but it’s still murder. I’m not necessarily making a judgement against the notion, but I am at least acknowledging that it is propaganda speech. It’s designed to allow people to consider the justification for killing a new born baby. Be brave boys and girls, and accept what it is, then you can debate whether it should be done.

 

[frigidweirdo]

P@triot brought up a paper written in 2012 about post birth abortions and is under the impression that mainstream liberals and leftists support these ideas. I thought I’d put it to the test. So I’m asking all liberals to state whether or not they support the ideas in the linked article. If you support the idea of post birth abortions please say why.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Post birth isn't an abortion. Unless you're Mrs Cartman.

But then it's the right who are fond of "post birth abortions", they're called executions.

 

[Slade3200]

The definition of abortion is terminating a pregnancy. If the child has been born then the mother is no longer pregnant, and if you kill the baby, well that is murder. The phrase post birth abortion is in fact an oxymoron.

It’s all explained in the paper as to what they are referring to

I read it, and I recognized what it is. It is a (lame) attempt at justification. They think by referring to killing a baby born with a birth defect as a post birth abortion it sounds less like murder. And it does, but it’s still murder. I’m not necessarily making a judgement against the notion, but I am at least acknowledging that it is propaganda speech. It’s designed to allow people to consider the justification for killing a new born baby. Be brave boys and girls, and accept what it is, then you can debate whether it should be done.

I agree, it’s absolutely murder and one way they are trying to justify it is by equivocating with abortions

 

[Norman]

I don't support them...

Scrap that, yes I support this proposal.

 

[Slade3200]

Any Liberals support this idea of post birth abortions?