If you thought Wendy Davis, who seems to advocate abortion on demand pretty much all the way up to the actual birth, represented the pro-choice side at its most extreme, guess again:
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.
You can give the death of a defective human being (which is what we're talking about here) a name you think gives it "the moral status of a fetus," but that doesnn't make the death anyting less than a murder. As William Saletan notes in a Slate article about this demented argument, pro-choicers should worry more about this than pro-lifers, because the case for "after-birth abortion" draws a logical path from pro-choice assumpttions to infanticide. Pro-lifers have been asking for years what the difference is between a late-term abortion and outrightin fanticide. Guess they have their answer now.
