I recently watched a podcast with Joe Rogan and Alex Jones, which is my own fault. The topic was a conspiracy theory about post-birth abortions, organ harvesting and the controversy surrounding the Virginia governor and his description of an example of abortion.
Now, as far as I know, born babies, already are protected by law and the new protection law, which was opposed by Democrats, wouldn't have added much to that protection.
While I am not sure what the governor was really trying to say, I wonder, if there are actually any proponents of "post-birth abortions", even if they are fringe extremists? It seems to me, that such a notion wouldn't make sense, even for the most hard-core pro-choice activists. What is there to gain, by killing a baby, which is already born?
And then there is the question, if abortion of a viable fetus, late in the third trimester, isn't basically the same as euthanasia? A late fetus has to be either delivered, dead or alive, or has to be extracted by cesarian, dead or alive. In these cases, what is the advantage of an abortion compared to a normal birth?
For the sake of argument, let's ignore the fact, that late abortions are rare, since they still do happen and the fact that they are rare adds nothing to the discussion. Let's also ignore the fact, that in practice many of those late abortions are due to horrible deformities and such.