We don't really think about it because we're so used to it. "Desensitized" is the term. At least, that's how it is for me. Don't get me wrong, I know what it is, but I don't always comprehend it. Which is why I was shocked and sickened to read about what they're calling "after birth abortion."
Now, babies and fetuses are, essentially the same. Both are completely innocent and helpless, are totally unaware of their own existence, and are human, above all else. All human life is sacred, which is why the abortion of a "fetus" should be just as shocking as the murder of a newborn. But it isn't.
It's all about what would be easiest for the parents. Like this article says:
Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.Where does it stop? First what we call "fetuses," then newborns. Are infants next? How about toddlers? When do we start murdering our teenagers because it's "in the best interests of the parents?"
Oh, and let's not forget this (taken from the same article):
The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”