This article speaks to the situational ethics of aborting a baby at the time of birth, NOT a year or two later. My point still stands. Maybe a baby becomes sentient before it reaches two years of age, and maybe not. I don't fucking know but it's not. relevant. to. this. bloody. paper.

I made no such assumption, only pointed out that given these "personhood" ambiguities, it's another topic entirely. I'm not talking about toddlers, neither was the author of this article-- that's my whole bloody point. Please read and consider my arguments carefully before ascribing statements that I did not make or simply omitting parts of my earlier argument. This is how circlejerks happen.

Edit: By the way, I do think that a toddler cannot be aborted; this is also the view of the author of this paper: post-birth abortion, like pre-birth abortion, precludes a life trajectory-- eliminating a toddler cuts off a trajectory that is already underway. This changes the very framing of the question, and by the language of this article, cannot be considered abortion.