Thoughts on the article?
@Donkeypumpslappr Thoughts on the article?
Abstract Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
Introduction Severe abnormalities of the fetus and risks for the physical and/or psychological health of the woman are often cited as valid reasons for abortion. Sometimes the two reasons are connected, such as when a woman claims that a disabled child would represent a risk to her mental health. However, having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children,1 regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself.
You can read the rest at the link. Personally I think the shit is wrong and donkeypimpslappr a inauthentic homosexual who will let his sub become shit positing comment sub 999. Maybe not let 1 word comments or say complete sentences have to be made or you get the following.
"Fag" - Average moron poster who is deep as a puddle.
"KYS " - Average moron poster who is deep as a puddle.
"Suck your dads dick homo." - Average moron poster who is deep as a puddle.
"Your mom should of swallowed you." - Average moron poster who is deep as a puddle.
"Faggot." - Average moron poster who is deep as a puddle.
"Why don't you suck some more dick." - Average moron poster who is deep as a puddle.
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
Introduction
Severe abnormalities of the fetus and risks for the physical and/or psychological health of the woman are often cited as valid reasons for abortion. Sometimes the two reasons are connected, such as when a woman claims that a disabled child would represent a risk to her mental health. However, having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children,1 regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself.
You can read the rest at the link. Personally I think the shit is wrong and donkeypimpslappr a inauthentic homosexual who will let his sub become shit positing comment sub 999. Maybe not let 1 word comments or say complete sentences have to be made or you get the following.
"Fag" - Average moron poster who is deep as a puddle.
"KYS " - Average moron poster who is deep as a puddle.
"Suck your dads dick homo." - Average moron poster who is deep as a puddle.
"Your mom should of swallowed you." - Average moron poster who is deep as a puddle.
"Faggot." - Average moron poster who is deep as a puddle.
"Why don't you suck some more dick." - Average moron poster who is deep as a puddle.
(post is archived)