This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Reproductive Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance). Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Abortion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I'm contesting this speedy on the grounds that it's not a hoax. The Journal of Medical Ethics just published something today on this subject which is likely why the page was created. See After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?. I'll be removing the speedy template. N^oformation ^Talk 00:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Also, quoting from the editor of the journal: "As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend its publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion." N^oformation ^Talk 00:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Something very strange here is that this is not pregnancy abortion but child euthanasia (and this was once a redirect there although misnamed), or infanticide, if outside of a medical necessity; and a newborn, not a fetus, unless it's born very under-developed. Of course this confusion was exploited to target the ethics of abortion itself. Point 3: "Newborns have the same moral status as foetuses (there are no morally relevant differences between them)" has never been accepted in medical ethics, it's like a false premise. For these reasons I'll try to find more sources and read on this to eventually improve the article... — Paleo Neonate – 13:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Well ten years later, it's a bit less nonsensical after reading the primary source and improving the summary (although interpretation of primary sources is something editors ideally shouldn't do at all)... — Paleo Neonate – 14:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

There are several redirects pointing here, that have pointed at various places and for which there were a few discussions, but the result was not necessarily that of the advice of the few medically qualified editors who participated:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 2#After-birth abortion
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 17#Post-birth abortion
• Abortion after birth
• Abortion post birth
• After birth abortion
• Post birth abortion
• Post-birth abortion

Since they're nonsensical and only a neologism used in this paper, only "After birth abortion" is really a plausible one. On the other hand, some previous targets like infanticide were obviously incorrect. — Paleo Neonate – 15:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply