Fact check: Is it legal to abort a child post birth

1. Summary of the results

The question asks about the legality of "aborting a child post birth," which is fundamentally a legal impossibility and conceptual contradiction. Once a child is born, any act of killing would constitute infanticide or homicide, not abortion, which by definition occurs before birth.

The analyses reveal this is primarily a philosophical debate rather than a legal one. Some bioethicists have argued for "after-birth abortion" as a theoretical concept, claiming that newborns have the same moral status as fetuses and therefore should be subject to the same considerations ^{[1] [2]}. However, this position has been strongly criticized by medical professionals who argue it is "biologically and conceptually flawed" and ignores the fundamental difference between a non-viable fetus and a viable neonate ^{[3] [4]}.

The closest legal precedent discussed is the US Supreme Court's ban on partial-birth abortion, which involves procedures performed before complete birth ^[5]. This demonstrates that even procedures occurring at the very end of pregnancy are heavily regulated and often prohibited.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context:

• Legal definitions: The question conflates abortion (a medical procedure during pregnancy) with infanticide (killing after birth), which are entirely different legal categories across all jurisdictions.
• Medical reality: The analyses discuss how the concept of "viability" - when a fetus can survive outside the womb - is central to abortion law but becomes irrelevant once birth occurs ^{[6] [7] [8]}.
• Philosophical vs. practical debate: While some academics have proposed theoretical frameworks for "after-birth abortion," this remains a purely academic discussion with no legal implementation anywhere ^[9].
• International perspective: The question doesn't specify jurisdiction, but the concept would be illegal under homicide laws in virtually all legal systems worldwide.

Beneficiaries of different narratives:

• Anti-abortion advocates benefit from promoting the "after-birth abortion" concept as it creates fear and opposition to abortion rights generally
• Certain bioethicists gain academic attention and publication opportunities by proposing controversial theoretical positions
• Political groups on both sides use such extreme examples to mobilize their bases and fundraising efforts

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains significant conceptual confusion that could spread misinformation:

• Terminological error: Using "abort" in reference to post-birth actions is medically and legally incorrect - this would be infanticide, not abortion.
• Implied legitimacy: By asking if it's "legal," the question suggests this might be a real practice somewhere, when it is universally illegal as homicide.
• Conflation of concepts: The question may intentionally or unintentionally blur the line between late-term abortion procedures and infanticide, which critics argue is used to "erode constitutional protection of women's rights" ^[5].

The framing appears designed to generate controversy rather than seek genuine legal information, as no jurisdiction permits killing children after birth under any circumstances. This type of question often serves as a rhetorical device in abortion debates rather than a legitimate legal inquiry.