If not this article, then what? I'm not aware of anyone talking about "after-birth abortions," let alone actually advocating them. I've never seen anyone here even hint at it. It seems to me to be a completely invented issue.
As far as where do we draw the line, that seems pretty straightforward. The foundation of pro-choice is that a woman has the right to make her own decisions about her body, including a fetus hosted within it. Once that fetus is independent of her body, her rights become more limited. She is now the mother rather than the host.
Sorry for the delay, contract negs for the last 2.5 days have me swamped. I see this thread has ripened nicely. So back on topic, I think your last 2 sentences should be the logic both side can agree on. Once the baby is born, the body-rights are largely absent and the baby should now be allowed the same rights as everyone.
I didn't realize this article would cause so many witty remarks about news feeds, it was just a reference point for the topic. The topic of after-birth abortions is a real thing however, it's definitely not main stream at this time but I'll not be shocked when more people do push for it.
Here's an article from the Journal of Thorasic and Cardiovascular Surgery on the topic
http://www.jtcvsonline.org/article/S0022-5223(14)01532-3/abstract
I remember this was a bit of a buzz here in canuckistan, maybe it didn't get any consideration in the US.
I would like to point out that I don't think most posters here would be OK with killing a born-baby, but I think there are some that would, say, for some of the reasons listed in the journal.
Now back to the off topic arguing and omgfunny wit, I guess.
Thanks for the on topic post.