Have a look at "Something Evil This Way Comes" - an article I recently saw referenced on a friend's status on Facebook. Then come back for my own comments on the topic (if you're interested).
"After birth abortion" - how can this even be justifiable as "not murder"? Because the child "lacks a moral status that would" - what? - presume its right to life? From the article: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack the properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Hmm... how far are we going to go with this "argument"? What about those with Alzheimer's? Or general dementia? What about the mentally retarded, is it now an option to simply "terminate" them at any point that caring for the individual (oh, wait, they're not justifiably individuals, right?) becomes an "unbearable burden"? Perhaps the "unbearable" should outweigh the "right" anyway - maybe I should be able to just "off" my kids when I decide that it's unbearable (because, you know, I can't go buy a nice Porsche, since I have all these child care expenses).
I personally am anti-abortion in general, but I think the absolute limit should be the point where a fetus has some chance of surviving were a premature birth to occur. At that point, the fetus has some chance of developing into a viable individual, and that chance should be afforded, not snuffed.
So, what do you think? Should post-birth abortion be our "next step" in making a greater world? At what point does the individual's "right to life" trump the caretaker's "right to an easy life"? (Oh, sorry, was that a pointed jab?)
