In conclusion

The conclusion to the previous post's subject matter:

"First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford."

I know.  I read the whole thing, and kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. The joke.  The punchline.  The ghost of Allen Funt jumping out and declaring I was being watched by a hidden camera.  But nope, just a Medical journal suggesting it's time to allow parents to kill newborn babies for any list of reasons, up to a time past birth not to be limited.

Brought to you by the scientists, medical researchers, and intellectuals in whom we have placed our undying trust and faith.