It's been seven days. Did you miss me? Didn't think so.
"Ethicists Argue for Post Birth Abortions." You read that right. See here for more: http://bit.ly/zJb2U5.
It's the logical end result of the "It's an unviable mass of tissue" argument, no? After all, if it's not a person in utero, and you can stick scissors into the back of its skull just before the head come out and have it be perfectly legal, or you can inject a woman's uterus with saline solution or have the baby vacuumed out into little grotesque, bloody bits and pieces at any moment before it's actually born, why not after it's born? What makes it any more a person after it's fully out of the mom's womb and the umbilical chord's been cut than it was before any of that happened?
Bravo for these ethicists for painting such a clear logical conclusion of the pro-choice argument. Disagree? The onus, then, is on you to demonstrate in a logical fashion why these "ethicists" have it in any way wrong.
Understand, I don't agree with them in the slightest. Instead, like Lenin with capitalists, I find them useful idiots.
Hat tip to Matthew Archbold.