« | Main | Upward Exit »
May 17, 2016
An argument for post-natal abortion
Now that the Royal College of Midwives has supported the idea of scrapping legal time limits on abortion, it’s time to start thinking logically.
Now, being a simple sort, I can’t for the life of me see any valid medical, physiological or, for old times’ sake, moral difference between a baby one day before climbing out of his mother’s womb and one day after. Some women are a bit early, some a bit late, but their babies look similar to me. If it’s permissible to kill one, there’s no reason not to kill the other, should his birth be inconvenient or undesirable.Logic would then suggest that there’s a serious argument to be made in favour of infanticide at any age at all. For example, why not abort Dave Cameron post-natally? His mind certainly hasn’t advanced beyond foetal stage, although his deviousness is very grown-up.
More to the point, why not abort Cathy Warwick, the RCM chief executive and the driving force behind this monstrous initiative? Surely she’ll be happy to go to her death upholding the logical extension of her innermost convictions. Her cause, like so many others, needs martyrs to be widely persuasive. – Alexander Boot
Posted by gerardvanderleun at May 17, 2016 12:12 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.
Your Say
The Romans believed that babies were not fully human until the age of 2 or 3 so infanticide was legal until then.
We are going backwards a couple of millennia
Posted by: bilejones ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://americandigest.org/sidelines/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 17, 2016 2:37 PM