'Couldn't get all wound up about that case in Florida because the case wasn't really about the nature of the act, just the timing -- the end result is the same.

If a kid is inconvenient to the mother, or the (purported) father is deemed to not be a worthy wallet-target, the matter is a woman's body & choice. Worthy wallet-targets are hit with the "takes two to tango" line (even though , on average, nearly 30% are not even at the tango).

Now, on to the latest outrage-in-the-works against men (don't think you'll have any say against it).

Published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Full article:
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full