[@POOHEAD189] Sure it can. I read the article. 

I personally feel that terminating an infant after birth, barring some sort of encephalopathy or birth defect would be a violation of my Hippocratic oath. 

[i] However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford."[/i]

It is hard to imagine that the economic cost would not be clear long before birth except in the case of an undetected medical condition.

[i]"we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child."[/i]

Ok if we are talking severe and undetected abnormalities...

[i]"then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn."[/i]

Again in the case of defects I can go with you here but in the case that you discovered a sufficiently severe defect via amnio weeks or months in the past, you would be negligent to hold off until after birth for the abortion. Similarly the economic cost of raising a child with no undetected defect ought to be clear FAR in advance of birth and you would be negligent to not abort earlier if that were you criteria. 

[i]"we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons."[/i]

That much we agree on, if you are going to abort, abort as early as possible. I can see the logical outgrowth they are driving at but it is hard to see where it would really be applicable sans a defect discovered after birth. Waiting till after birth for any reason other than an undetected defect seems like negligence.