This is like demanding that someone prove that leaves are green....
Begin with this.....
In 2002, was the only member of the Illinois state Senate to speak on the floor against a bill protecting premature infants born alive in the course of failed abortions. He had argued that to give such legal recognition to the humanity of a bby born so prematurely would threaten the right to legal abortion: [W]hat we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided a- a child a nine-month old- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortion to take place.”
OBAMA Senate Bill 1093 (Illinois)
Proceed to this.....
1. " “Partial-birth abortion” is a term invented by pro-lifers. But “after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:
W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.
2. The case for “after-birth abortion” draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us, implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t.
3. “Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life,” they write. “Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life,” such as “spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted” or “fetuses where abortion is permitted.”...They note that neural development continues after birth and that the newborn doesn’t yet meet their definition of a “person”—“an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”
4. Personhood doesn’t begin until sometime after birth. Once that premise is added, the newborn, like the fetus, becomes fair game.
5. Any burden on the woman outweighs the value of the child. Giubilini and Minerva note that philosophers such as Peter Singer have presented arguments for neonaticide for many years....“Actual people's well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of,” they observe.
6. 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 infant 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."
After-Birth Abortion: The pro-choice case for infanticide. - Slate Magazine
The article is published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. These are the same kind of professionals who designed ObamaCare/
