End Times and Current Events
November 19, 2018, 11:51:43 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (KJB)
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Shoutbox
August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
View Shout History
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?  (Read 875 times)
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21393



View Profile
« on: February 28, 2012, 12:49:07 pm »

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.

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

Quote
Introduction
Severe abnormalities of the fetus and risks for the physical and/or psychological health of the woman are often cited as valid reasons for abortion. Sometimes the two reasons are connected, such as when a woman claims that a disabled child would represent a risk to her mental health. However, having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children,1 regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself.

A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human.

Such an issue arises, for example, when an abnormality has not been detected during pregnancy or occurs during delivery. Perinatal asphyxia, for instance, may cause severe brain damage and result in severe mental and/or physical impairments comparable with those for which a woman could request an abortion. Moreover, abnormalities are not always, or cannot always be, diagnosed through prenatal screening even if they have a genetic origin. This is more likely to happen when the disease is not hereditary but is the result of genetic mutations occurring in the gametes of a healthy parent. One example is the case of Treacher-Collins syndrome (TCS), a condition that affects 1 in every 10 000 births causing facial deformity and related physiological failures, in particular potentially life-threatening respiratory problems. Usually those affected by TCS are not mentally impaired and they are therefore fully aware of their condition, of being different from other people and of all the problems their pathology entails. Many parents would choose to have an abortion if they find out, through genetic prenatal testing, that their fetus is affected by TCS. However, genetic prenatal tests for TCS are usually taken only if there is a family history of the disease. Sometimes, though, the disease is caused by a gene mutation that intervenes in the gametes of a healthy member of the couple. Moreover, tests for TCS are quite expensive and it takes several weeks to get the result. Considering that it is a very rare pathology, we can understand why women are not usually tested for this disorder.

However, such rare and severe pathologies are not the only ones that are likely to remain undetected until delivery; even more common congenital diseases that women are usually tested for could fail to be detected. An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down's syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing.2 This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down's syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. Once these children are born, there is no choice for the parents but to keep the child, which sometimes is exactly what they would not have done if the disease had been diagnosed before birth.

Abortion and after-birth abortion
Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers3 for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.

Also medical professionals have recognised the need for guidelines about cases in which death seems to be in the best interest of the child. In The Netherlands, for instance, the Groningen Protocol (2002) allows to actively terminate the life of ‘infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering’.4

Although it is reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is against the best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down's syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’.3 But, in fact, people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.5

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.

There are two reasons which, taken together, justify this claim:

The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.

It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.

We are going to justify these two points in the following two sections.

The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Our point here is that, although it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a ‘person’, a necessary condition for a subject to have a right to X is that she is harmed by a decision to deprive her of X. There are many ways in which an individual can be harmed, and not all of them require that she values or is even aware of what she is deprived of. A person might be ‘harmed’ when someone steals from her the winning lottery ticket even if she will never find out that her ticket was the winning one. Or a person might be ‘harmed’ if something were done to her at the stage of fetus which affects for the worse her quality of life as a person (eg, her mother took drugs during pregnancy), even if she is not aware of it. However, in such cases we are talking about a person who is at least in the condition to value the different situation she would have found herself in if she had not been harmed. And such a condition depends on the level of her mental development,6 which in turn determines whether or not she is a ‘person’.

Those who are only capable of experiencing pain and pleasure (like perhaps fetuses and certainly newborns) have a right not to be inflicted pain. If, in addition to experiencing pain and pleasure, an individual is capable of making any aims (like actual human and non-human persons), she is harmed if she is prevented from accomplishing her aims by being killed. Now, hardly can a newborn be said to have aims, as the future we imagine for it is merely a projection of our minds on its potential lives. It might start having expectations and develop a minimum level of self-awareness at a very early stage, but not in the first days or few weeks after birth. On the other hand, not only aims but also well-developed plans are concepts that certainly apply to those people (parents, siblings, society) who could be negatively or positively affected by the birth of that child. Therefore, the rights and interests of the actual people involved should represent the prevailing consideration in a decision about abortion and after-birth abortion.

It is true that a particular moral status can be attached to a non-person by virtue of the value an actual person (eg, the mother) attributes to it. However, this ‘subjective’ account of the moral status of a newborn does not debunk our previous argument. Let us imagine that a woman is pregnant with two identical twins who are affected by genetic disorders. In order to cure one of the embryos the woman is given the option to use the other twin to develop a therapy. If she agrees, she attributes to the first embryo the status of ‘future child’ and to the other one the status of a mere means to cure the ‘future child’. However, the different moral status does not spring from the fact that the first one is a ‘person’ and the other is not, which would be nonsense, given that they are identical. Rather, the different moral statuses only depends on the particular value the woman projects on them. However, such a projection is exactly what does not occur when a newborn becomes a burden to its family.

The fetus and the newborn are potential persons
Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life.

It might be claimed that someone is harmed because she is prevented from becoming a person capable of appreciating her own being alive. Thus, for example, one might say that we would have been harmed if our mothers had chosen to have an abortion while they were pregnant with us7 or if they had killed us as soon as we were born. However, whereas you can benefit someone by bringing her into existence (if her life is worth living), it makes no sense to say that someone is harmed by being prevented from becoming an actual person. The reason is that, by virtue of our definition of the concept of ‘harm’ in the previous section, in order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm.

If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. So, if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed, had our parents decided to kill us when we were fetuses or newborns, our answer is ‘no’, because they would have harmed someone who does not exist (the ‘us’ whom you are asking the question), which means no one. And if no one is harmed, then no harm occurred.

A consequence of this position is that the interests of actual people over-ride the interest of merely potential people to become actual ones. This does not mean that the interests of actual people always over-ride any right of future generations, as we should certainly consider the well-being of people who will inhabit the planet in the future. Our focus is on the right to become a particular person, and not on the right to have a good life once someone will have started to be a person. In other words, we are talking about particular individuals who might or might not become particular persons depending on our choice, and not about those who will certainly exist in the future but whose identity does not depend on what we choose now.

The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends,8 is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence. Actual people's well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of. Sometimes this situation can be prevented through an abortion, but in some other cases this is not possible. In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. We might still have moral duties towards future generations in spite of these future people not existing yet. But because we take it for granted that such people will exist (whoever they will be), we must treat them as actual persons of the future. This argument, however, does not apply to this particular newborn or infant, because we are not justified in taking it for granted that she will exist as a person in the future. Whether she will exist is exactly what our choice is about.

Adoption as an alternative to after-birth abortion?
A possible objection to our argument is that after-birth abortion should be practised just on potential people who could never have a life worth living.9 Accordingly, healthy and potentially happy people should be given up for adoption if the family cannot raise them up. Why should we kill a healthy newborn when giving it up for adoption would not breach anyone's right but possibly increase the happiness of people involved (adopters and adoptee)?

Our reply is the following. We have previously discussed the argument from potentiality, showing that it is not strong enough to outweigh the consideration of the interests of actual people. Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero. On this perspective, the interests of the actual people involved matter, and among these interests, we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption. Birthmothers are often reported to experience serious psychological problems due to the inability to elaborate their loss and to cope with their grief.10 It is true that grief and sense of loss may accompany both abortion and after-birth abortion as well as adoption, but we cannot assume that for the birthmother the latter is the least traumatic. For example, ‘those who grieve a death must accept the irreversibility of the loss, but natural mothers often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible’.11

We are not suggesting that these are definitive reasons against adoption as a valid alternative to after-birth abortion. Much depends on circumstances and psychological reactions. What we are suggesting is that, if interests of actual people should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption.

Conclusions
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, 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.

Two considerations need to be added.

First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

Second, 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. 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.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Professor Sergio Bartolommei, University of Pisa, who read an early draft of this paper and gave us very helpful comments. The responsibility for the content remains with the authors.

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8

Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21393



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2012, 08:24:15 am »

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.


The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

rest: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21393



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2012, 06:21:12 am »

FIRST-PERSON: What Roe has wrought: 'after-birth' abortion

Should a newborn be allowed to live? This very question is the subject of an article by two Australian-based ethicists that appears in the latest Journal of Medical Ethics (JME), an international publication based in Britain.

The question, of course, is not difficult to answer. In the biblical worldview, a baby should be allowed to live because human life originates with God. Human life is precious, sacred and, as the Bible asserts, made in the image of God.

The authors have a very different take. In their article titled "After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?," Alberto Giubilini of Melbourne's Monash University and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne argue the only reason an infant should be allowed to live is if the parents deem it so.

Giubilini and Minerva believe the criteria that allow an unborn baby to be aborted should also be applied to an infant that has been born. Studies have shown that in developed countries, like the United States, the primary reasons given for abortion range from poverty to simply not wanting an additional child. Simply put, in the developed nations of the world babies are aborted more than 90 percent of the time as a matter of convenience.

"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," the authors write.

The authors assert there is no difference between an infant and an unborn child -- they use the precise but sterile medical term "fetus." Both are essentially non-persons, they say, and as such, neither has an inherent right to life.

They write: "If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, 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."

According to Giubilini and Minerva, in order to qualify as a person an individual must have formed an "aim" that he or she is conscious of and able to pursue and/or achieve. An unborn child and infant both lack the aforementioned, according to the authors, and thus only qualify as potential persons.

The argument put forth by Giubilini and Minerva is not new. Ever since medical science has proved that the pre-born baby is indeed alive, abortion proponents grasped for any reason to "validate" abortion. Now they argue that while the "fetus" might be alive, it is not a person, and thus can be aborted. But pro-choicers normally have stopped that assertion at the baby's birth.

What Giubilini and Minerva do is take the current abortion debate to its next logical step and apply it to infants. If an infant, like a pre-born baby, is not self-aware and is not conscious of an "aim" in life then it is not a person and can be killed for any reason or for no reason, they say.

The authors have chosen to describe their practice as "after-birth abortion." Though they admit the term comes across as oxymoronic, it was obviously chosen to make a barbaric practice appear more palatable.

Perhaps the most stunning argument by Giubilini and Minerva centers on adoption. The authors address the question: Why not simply allow the baby to be adopted? Their answer is shocking.

"Consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption," argue the authors. "... [A]fter-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption."

In the worldview of Giubilini and Minerva, a woman's potential psychological distress outweighs the right to life of an infant. While that is shocking, I have heard the same argument put forth by abortion advocates concerning pregnancy.

It is going to be interesting to see how abortion supporters deal with the recent journal article. The authors use the exact same arguments to justify infanticide that abortion advocates use in defense of killing pre-born children. After all, what is the moral difference between killing a full-term baby minutes before delivery -- allowed under Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions -- and killing it after delivery?

If personhood requires a measure of consciousness, an aim or a function, then what do we do with those who are mentally challenged? What about the physically handicapped? How about those who suffer from Alzheimer's disease? Will all these be classified as non-persons and become disposable?

Ideas have consequences.

It is amazing how a woman's "right to choose" to terminate the life of her pre-born child has impacted our world. Abortion started out as being permissible primarily in the early stages of pregnancy and then progressed to justify the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. Now it is even being applied to the lives of infants. Where will it go next?

Pro-choice logic dictates that many of the same arguments used to defend abortion -- particularly late-term abortion -- can apply to newborns. When society embraced abortion-on-demand, it rejected the idea of absolute moral truth. Now we are adrift in a sea or moral relativism where so-called intellectuals believe killing a perfectly healthy infant is permissible. God have mercy on us.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=37315
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21393



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2012, 06:22:15 am »

Friday, March 2, 2012 at 2:53PM NOTRadio
Today's Show:  ABORTION


Today, Chris talks about an article citing experts saying "abortion is the same as killing babies."  Chris discusses the file "Lake Of Fire" which shows behind the scenes footage of both anti-abortion extremists and abortionists.  Learn more about the issue of abortion, what Americans, especially Christian Americans should do, and why abortion is such a controversial issue in the rising ecumenical movements.

http://www.noiseofthunder.com/storage/NOTR_Abortion_3.2.12%201.mp3
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21393



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2012, 10:50:13 am »

After-Birth Abortion: Eugenicists Say Babies are a Parasitic Burden on Society

According to Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, “after-birth abortion” is proposed as a form of “contraception” that would allow babies to be killed after they are born.

In a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics:

“[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child.

Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”

Giubilini and Minerva believe that infants are a “threat” to parents because of their financial burden to their parents and that this justifies the murder of new-born babies.

In the Senate, Joe Pitts and Chris Smith spoke out against this ideology. Smith explains: “Giubilini and Minerva say the devaluation of new-born babies is inextricably linked to the devaluation of unborn children.”

Ann Furedi of the British Pregnancy Advisory Board stated that it was of no consequence to define the point when a fetus is subject to legal limitation with regard to abortion rights.

Giubilini and Minerva agree with this summation by stating that “merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life,” such as “spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted” or “fetuses where abortion is permitted.”



By defining personhood as being established “some time” after birth, Giubilini and Minerva assert that a fetus has no claim to personhood, and therefore no right to life.

They write that:

“[I ]n order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm. If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. … In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. …

Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.”

Giubilini and Minerva support previous arguments for infanticide regardless of whether or not the baby were given a short lifespandue to a medical prognosis.

Simply by being born the baby is regarded as an “unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.”

Parents, relatives and even society should be enabled to force a mother to submit her child to infanticide because of the benefits that one less person would bring to our world.

Giubilini and Minerva state that infants are dependent on parents just as fetuses are parasites to the mother’s body. And since no one can ensure that this person will not die prematurely in the future, the investment of resources, time and emotional support cannot be assumed to be a right of the infant.

During pregnancy, the development of the fetus can reveal defects that can legally warrant a partial-birth abortion. Giubilini and Minerva argue that this fact can be extended to after birth because a defective baby can be an “economical, social or psychological” burden because of the energy needed to care for the child.

They say that “people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.”

The prevention of right to life for infants has another supporter in a study published by the Archives of General Psychiatry (AGP) that asserted pre-mature babies are at an increased risk for bipolar disorder, depression and a wide range of psychosis that would render them a danger to themselves and others later in life.

Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of a SANE, a mental health charity, stated: “We already knew that premature birth may be linked to schizophrenia, but to see evidence linking it to a range of psychiatric conditions which required hospitalization is striking.”

While Giubilini and Minerva use eugenics agendas to coerce the public into believing that society would be better off without certain “burdensome” infants, an outright attack on fertility is taking place.

Dr. Martin Matzuk , professor of molecular biology, molecular and human genetics, and pharmacology at Baylor College of Medicine (BCM), is working on a birth-control pill for men that blocks the proteins essential for sperm production – rendering men “voluntarily” infertile.

The BCM has a long history of working to expanding the eugenics agenda with the use of genetic technologies; including collaboration with the German ****s and their march toward using genetics to create a “better human race”.

By looking for “justice as fairness” with the ethical practice of genetics and eugenics concerning applied science and social constructs.

The advantage of eugenics ideology in genetic technology is viewed as “the greatest benefit of individuals with the least advantages.” And so by subverting the fact of eugenics in genetic advances will alleviate prejudice and make sure that the eugenics agenda is devoid of negative perceptions so that the genetically disadvantaged could be touted as the beneficiaries of eugenic applications in genetic technologies.

Last month, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) hosted The London Family Planning Summit (LFPS) where the BMGF secured funding for depopulation efforts in Africa, India and the Southeast Asian region.

Melinda Gates believes that if she can prevent 40% of people who would otherwise have been born, she could justify her family planning scheme to make women healthier who’s “families are more successful and their communities are more prosperous.”

Simply put: the BMGF has classified “unwanted” pregnancies as justification for killing people and they are focusing on eventually eliminating this number to reduce the world’s population. Africa, a big focus for the BMGF is being targeted along with Muslim nations.

In this propaganda cartoon, the depiction of brown and black women as disfigured potatoes having much more fun because they have fewer children is not only offensive, but telling of how these global Elite view the people they purport to be “saving”.

By preventing births, the film says that 600,000 people would not be born. Contraception as a first step in the global Elite’s plan to depopulation by appearing to help save lives of women could be quite effective.

Susanne Posel is the Chief Editor of Occupy Corporatism Our alternative news site is dedicated to reporting the news as it actually happens; not as it is spun by the corporate-funded mainstream media. You can find us on our Facebook page.



http://theintelhub.com/2012/08/21/after-birth-abortion-eugenicists-say-babies-are-a-parasitic-burden-on-society-2/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2012, 02:14:02 pm »

Quote
“[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child.

Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”

WOW! People actually think like that. That is pure ignorance, or pure evil.

That mentality could lead to "after birth" population control with them simply deciding who is a burden on society and who gets whacked at the local clinic! For the betterment of society no doubt!  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21393



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2013, 06:02:01 am »

Students sign petition to legalize abortion after childbirth

 Several students at George Mason University (GMU) signed a petition on Wednesday demanding lawmakers legalize “fourth trimester” abortions.

The petition, which was circulated on GMU’s flagship campus in Fairfax, VA., just outside Washington D.C., by Media Research Center reporter Dan Joseph said it was aimed at sending “a message to our lawmakers that women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies and babies” even “after their pregnancies.”

“If you don’t know what fourth trimester is, it’s after the baby is already born,” Joseph added in a video showing him collect the signatures.

WATCH: Students sign petition to legalize ‘fourth trimester’ abortions



 “Currently fourth trimester abortions are illegal in all 50 states,” he told students before asking them to sign his petition.

Most student responses varied from “okay” to “cool.”

One concerned student asked if the procedure would “cause harm to the child.”

“Well the child wouldn’t be there anymore,” responded Joseph. “It’s abortion.”

That student then signed the petition.

Joseph said that after one hour he was able to garner fourteen signatures.

“That is a lot for the summer because there aren’t as many people on campus,” he said in the video.

http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4872
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2013, 11:12:34 am »

^^ Honestly, I am just at a loss at words over this - I know the American public has been kept in the dark over the true draconian agendas of abortion, but nonetheless I don't ever recall in my lifetime where reactions have been indifferent to supportive over aborting babies AFTER they are born. Wait a minute...I thought the real issue is "a woman having a right to choose what she wants to do with her body"? Now they're saying women have rights to do what they want with their babies after they're born? Huh

Just nothing makes any sense anymore, it seems. Undecided

1Cor 13:11  When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2013, 03:12:59 pm »

I see it as an example of how the unbelieving ignorant public are manipulated by catch words, like abortion. They have been conditioned to think a certain way, so mention that word and you get a predictable, measurable response. But this goes further as it shows people are so deceived, they don't even realize that "after birth" means they are murdering a new born baby. All they hear is "abortion" and that trigger kicks in that they should support it, because socially nobody wants to be guilty of discriminating, right?, so it's what's being promoted as the way people should think about a person's rights. It's like sound bites on tv, over and over, that they don't really hear anything but those key words.
Report Spam   Logged
Christian40
Moderators
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3836


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2013, 02:50:44 am »

(NaturalNews) Today Natural News denounces Melissa Harris-Perry, the latest talking head "death worshipper" to publicly imply that she supports the murder of living, breathing newborn children. According to Harris-Perry, life begins when the parents feel like life begins. And together with some twisted new "ethics" arguments from the radical left, this can include months or years after a child is born.

"That's why I need to premise this article with a disclaimer: This article is not about abortion. It's about the murder of children after they are born. Because once a child is born alive, terminating that life is no longer a "choice" … it's murder by every legal and moral standard. Because while abortion friends and foes can argue about when life begins in the womb, no one disagrees that a child born alive is, well, ALIVE… do they?

Indeed, they do. MSNBC talking head Melissa Harris-Perry insists that life only begins when the parents have a "feeling" that it begins. "When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling -- but not science," Harris-Perry said to nationwide astonishment on her July 21 MSNBC show.

And in one stroke, she simultaneously condones the murder of newborn infants (i.e. "post-birth abortion") while attacking the science of biology which unambiguously states that a living, breathing infant with a heartbeat and brain function is alive, not dead.

But don't tell that to the radical abortion whackos. Far beyond arguing for the "right" to abort a baby in the first or second trimester, many abortion advocates who run in the same circles as Melissa Harris-Perry are now publicly arguing that it is okay for parents to kill their children up to age three. This is now being promoted as a "post-birth abortion."

It was also called a "fourth trimester abortion" by a clever pollster who recently took to the streets of George Mason University to find out if summertime college students would sign a petition legalizing fourth-trimester abortions. Nearly all who were asked to sign the petition did so! One of the college students even asked whether the procedure would "cause harm to the child."

"Well the child wouldn't be there anymore," responded the pollster, after which the college student then proceeded to sign the petition.

Murdering live babies under the label of "abortion"
Let's be clear about where all this is headed. This is not about arguing over a woman's right to have a first- or second-trimester abortion. This isn't even a debate about a third-trimester abortion, the kind of abortion that was recently outlawed in Texas, much to the despair of late-term abortion advocates across the country, some of whom actually chanted "Hail Satan" in unison at the Austin abortion rally.

This is really about the zealous desire of the radical left to legalize the "aborting" of babies after they are born alive so that parents can have the legal right to kill living babies they suddenly decide they don't want to raise.

Getting back to Harris-Perry, according to her radical brand of death culture ideology, a parent can "decide" that a baby born alive isn't really alive yet. That parent can wait to see whether the baby is well-behaved, or cute, or has the right skin color, or whatever, before deciding whether to keep it or kill it. If such an ideology were fronted by someone like George Bush, it would be wildly derided as barbaric and anti-human, but because the idea of murdering newborn babies is being pushed by liberals, it is met with silence instead of outrage.

"When a pregnancy is wanted . . . It is easy to think of the bump as a baby," says Melissa Harris-Perry, implying that when a pregnancy is not wanted, that bump isn't a baby at all. Somehow it's just a mass of dead tissue that you can dispose of at will. The fact that the "bump" results in a live childbirth is never admitted by people like Harris-Perry. The baby isn't "alive" until you decide it is!

Recently, two black parents were shocked to find that the woman gave birth to a white baby. According to Melissa Harris-Perry, these two black parents can now "decide" their white baby isn't alive at all and therefore commit infanticide that's rephrased as a "post-birth abortion."

This is the position embraced by the radical left: babies are not humans, and it is okay to murder them even up to age three.

Newborn babies have no "moral right to life"
A study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that newborn babies have no "moral right to life," and are thus not actually "persons." Alberto Giubilini, from The University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, a post-doctoral fellow at The University of Melbourne's Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, are heroes of the radical left. They argue that infanticide should be legal but renamed "post-birth abortion."

They insist that newborn babies have no right to life and that parents can simply "decide" to kill their children for all sorts of reasons, including feeling like the child will be too expensive to raise, or suddenly discovering the fact that newborn babies cry a lot.

"Rather than being actual persons, newborns were potential persons," write the study authors. They don't really count as human beings until the parents decide they do.

This appears to be the same argument being made by MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry, who expressed extreme outrage over the murder of Trayvon Martin but seems to openly embrace the murder of countless black infants who are born alive and healthy but are "unwanted" by their parents. Life begins based "on the feeling of the parents," she submits. So it's utterly unscientific and subject to (liberal) interpretation, which in this case seems to favor infanticide and even eugenics. (By far most aborted babies in America are Black and Hispanic. If post-birth abortion is openly embraced, most of the murdered infants will also be Black and Hispanic.)

And so the violent contradiction of radical leftist ideology is exposed in the raw: Liberals claim to support "equality" but then they consider living babies to be "non-persons." Liberals claim to support racial minorities, yet they endorse and even encourage the murder of the young babies of their own minority race. Liberals claim that all life is sacred, but their glaring exception is the life of a newborn child, which should be the most sacred of all but is instead considered worthless.

When it comes to taking a life, pro-abortion liberals are all for it. But when it comes to defending your life with a legal firearm, liberals are aggressively opposed to it.

So let me get this straight: Murder is okay but self defense is evil?

Or better yet, if Trayvon Martin had been an "unwanted" newborn just six months old, would his murder have been celebrated by the left instead of mourned? Help me figure this out, please, because I'm trying to understand at what age, exactly, the murder of a young black baby invokes racially-charged marches across the nation vs. receiving applause from people like Melissa Harris-Perry. Apparently if Trayvon Martin had been murdered by his own parents 16 years earlier, that would have been perfectly acceptable to these people.

Melissa Harris-Perry is a modern-day holocaust denier
At the risk of being accused of making sense, let me state the obvious here: People like Melissa Harris-Perry are the new holocaust deniers. They are anti-human agenda pushers who literally inspire others to murder their own children.

I don't know about you, but I cannot accept, as a spiritual human being and a responsible member of society, the legalization of the murder of babies who are born alive and breathing. Yet that is precisely what the radical left is pushing for: the "right" to murder their own children up to the age of three. (Oh yeah, they're also pushing for the "right" to kill elderly people, but that's another article altogether.)

Such an agenda is despicable, if not downright demonic. And the fact that people like Harris-Perry spew this death cult violence on MSNBC -- the propaganda branch of the White house -- only further proves that MSNBC has lost all credibility and is now being run as a Hitler-style holocaust support network that tolerates hosts who effectively endorse the mass murder of babies all across America.

There is evil in this nation, and wicked women like Harris-Perry are steeped in it. Mainstream media networks like MSNBC thrive on it, and the destructive forces that currently occupy the White House gain power from it. Everywhere you turn, there are efforts under way to sow racial hatred, murder innocent babies, poison the food supply, chemically lobotomize children with vaccines and enslave the masses medically and economically.

I hereby denounce this wickedness, on the record, as a statement of principle for the world to witness. I will forever oppose these merchants of death and their sick, demented eugenics schemes. I will fight to protect the lives of the innocent for as long as I am alive, even if those innocent lives include two-day-old black babies who have just been brought into this world through the miracle of gestation and childbirth.

I call for all Natural News readers and supporters to take steps each and every day to resist evil and overcome the forces of death and destruction that now dominate our society through witch-hearted minions like Melissa Harris-Perry, a traitor to humanity and an endorser of the murder of children.

This woman should be immediately blackballed by the entire media and yanked off the air to return to her own little world of tampon earrings and dead newborns. Or maybe she will murder her own baby in the near future and feature it on the set of MSNBC in a special celebration broadcast complete with pentagrams etched on the desk and a chorus of hooded Satan worshippers drinking the blood of the dead fetus while Melissa Harris-Perry reads the names of sponsors. Sadly, it would probably get record ratings and be heralded by the death culture media as "pioneering television." And it would most certainly be cheered by the radical left as a "choice."

http://www.naturalnews.com/041398_post-birth_abortion_infanticide_Melissa_Harris-Perry.html#ixzz2apMX4ZBM

Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2013, 05:33:12 am »

Quote
It's about the murder of children after they are born.

Murder, exactly.

By those vile creatures logic, they might as well say it's okay to "abort" a child up to age 18.  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2013, 07:39:47 am »

Quote
And so the violent contradiction of radical leftist ideology is exposed in the raw: Liberals claim to support "equality" but then they consider living babies to be "non-persons." Liberals claim to support racial minorities, yet they endorse and even encourage the murder of the young babies of their own minority race. Liberals claim that all life is sacred, but their glaring exception is the life of a newborn child, which should be the most sacred of all but is instead considered worthless.

When it comes to taking a life, pro-abortion liberals are all for it. But when it comes to defending your life with a legal firearm, liberals are aggressively opposed to it.

Uhm, and so were so-called "conservatives" - both Prescott Bush and Barry Goldwater(and his wife) had close ties to Planned Parenthood in their days. To boot, it was partly b/c of their influence that PP was allowed to get their feet wet.

But yeah, guess we can say that Grandpa Bush and the Goldwaters were liberals in conservative's clothing.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21393



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2015, 08:29:20 am »

Doctors Euthanize 650 Babies Under Assisted Suicide Law in the Netherlands

In 2013, 650 babies died under Holland’s assisted suicide law because their parents or doctors deemed their suffering too difficult to bear.

Thankfully, according to Breitbart News, these statistics have caused some supporters of the legislation to question their reasoning. Dutch Ethicist, Theo Boer, used to believe that “slippery slope” arguments were invalid and argued in support of assisted suicide legislation; but now he has a very different view.

He said, “I used to be a supporter of legislation. But now, with twelve years of experience, I take a different view. At the very least, wait for an honest and intellectually satisfying analysis of the reasons behind the explosive increase in the numbers. Is it because the law should have had better safeguards? Or is it because the mere existence of such a law is an invitation to see assisted suicide and euthanasia as a normality instead of a last resort? Before those questions are answered, don’t go there. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is not likely to ever go back in again.”

Meanwhile, a recent article in the Daily Mail highlights the problem with our society’s growing acceptance of assisted suicide.

baby39In the article, the author starts by sharing the story of Andre Verhoeven, a man who chose to end his own life through lethal injection in the Netherlands. Andre was a schoolteacher and had plans to retire and travel the world with his wife, Dora.

However, at the age of 65, he was diagnosed with acute leukaemia, a cancer of the blood. Currently, there is no cure for this horrific disease and because of the complications, Andre became paralyzed from the neck down.

His daughter, Bregje, said, “His end was so peaceful. Once my father had decided on euthanasia, he was relieved. He was looking forward to the date he would die. In the last few days he was able to say goodbye to his family, his friends, to talk about old times.” This story is definitely heart wrenching but stories like this are fairly commonplace in discussions concerning assisted suicide. When we think of someone who chooses to commit suicide, we think of terminal patients like Andre who simply don’t want to suffer anymore. But what many people are unaware of is that assisted suicide advocates promote the euthanasia and suicide of non-terminal patients.

Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

For example, the author of the Daily Mail article, Sue Reid, also shares the story of a woman whose assisted suicide choice paints a fuller picture of what’s going on in some parts of Europe.

She writes “In Holland I also spoke to the family of a 47-year-old woman with tinnitus, a persistent ringing in the ears, who ended her life last March with the help of an ‘Life End’ clinic. Gaby Olthuis, a divorcee, was a brilliant clarinet player, but said she suffered ‘24-hour noise’ in her head, ‘like a train screeching or someone scratching their nails on a chalk board’. She explained: ‘I look healthy from the outside, but inside I am being tortured.’

To end her suffering, she was given a lethal potion to drink by one of the clinic’s doctors at her home. Shockingly, she left behind two teenagers, a boy of 13 and girl of 15. Her mother Joan explained: ‘Gaby told the children that she was planning to die, she was in pain and there was no cure for her. The euthanasia was agreed by doctors and she said her goodbyes and had time to organize her memorial service. She died a month later. Of course the children miss her badly, but they understand her decision.” So in other words, Gaby legally killed herself because of persistent ringing in her ears. Now, we shouldn’t make light of her suffering, but most people would agree that this is absolutely outrageous.

In Holland, mentally ill patients are dying as well. In 2013, 42 psychiatric patients died through euthanasia, which is three times as many that died in 2012. Some of these patients chose to end their own lives but for others, their family members made the choice.

In the National Review, Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism said we should “stop pretending assisted suicide is about terminal illness and admit it is much more about disability–which is why the disability rights movement remains so opposed as they are the primary targets. It is about allowing killing as an acceptable answer to many causes of suffering, whether terminal or chronic disease, disability, mental illness, or existential despair.”

Here’s the unavoidable problem with assisted suicide legislation: today, we’re legally killing the terminally ill and the sick but assisted suicide laws won’t stop there, instead they will open Pandora’s box to all sorts of “justifiable” killing.

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/02/doctors-euthanize-650-babies-under-assisted-suicide-law-in-the-netherlands/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21393



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 31, 2015, 07:42:02 am »

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.


 The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

 “We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded 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”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.

Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled 'What is the problem with euthanasia?'

He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.

Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.

What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.

Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary's University College, said: "If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say 'it's doesn't matter, she can get another one,' is that what we want to happen?

"What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new."

Referring to the term "after-birth abortion", Dr Stammers added: "This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21393



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 16, 2015, 06:06:09 am »

‘Pro-Abortion Guy’ Begs Interviewer Not to Air His Responses — After Hearing Them, You May Understand Why

Rebel Media’s Marissa Semkiw hit the streets during Ottawa’s “March for Life” this week and encountered a seemingly unyielding abortion supporter who argued it’s always the “woman’s choice” — even when it comes to “post-natal abortion.”


demon possessed Lib-Tard

The man, identified only as Alex, later reportedly sent an email to Semkiw asking that none of his responses be used in any videos or broadcasts. Rebel Media declined his request.

During the interview, Semkiw explained that some pro-life advocates would like to see abortion criminalized “up to a certain point,” not banned entirely. She then asked him if it would be OK to abort a baby one month before he or she was born.

Alex first said it’s “understandable” to want to ban abortions after eight months, but quickly reiterated that the choice should be left to a woman and her doctor “no matter what.”

“How about a week?” Semkiw asked.

“That’s her decision again,” he replied.

“How about a day?” she pressed.

“Also her decision,” Alex said. “It’s not for me or any member of Parliament or religious organization to tell her otherwise.”

“How about post-natal abortion?” Semkiw asked, running out of scenarios.

“If that’s the option then that’s the option,” the man answered. “I’m not advocating for murder of any kind — again, it’s not my choice.”



Rebel Media aired his responses in full and posted the video on YouTube, where it was gaining traction online Friday. This, despite the fact that Alex later reportedly sent this email:

    “After consideration, I request that you DO NOT use my likeness/image on your website or any other media platform. If any footage or photos come your way with a man holding a sign that says, ‘Guess What, A Woman’s Body Is Her Own F***ing Business,” This is me.”

    [...]

    “Again, please do not post or use this interview in ANY capacity.”

Semkiw explained their decision to decline his request, saying, “Unfortunately, Alex, you chose to be a self-appointed representative of the pro-choice movement on Parliament Hill during the national March for Life.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/15/pro-abortion-guy-begs-interviewer-not-to-air-his-responses-after-hearing-them-you-may-understand-why/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21393



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2016, 10:20:40 pm »

Canadian Woman Who Drowned Newborn Son Sentenced Only to Probation, No Jail Time

A Canadian woman who drowned her newborn son five years ago will not face any time behind bars, despite a judge calling her actions “abhorrent.”

Courtney Saul, 24, has been sentenced to two years probation by Judge Len Marchand since the girl did not have a prior criminal record and became pregnant from ****.

According to reports, Saul, then a student at Thompson Rivers University, gave birth in Dec. 2011 in her basement apartment in Kamloops.

But as she had an exam at school later that day, she wasn’t sure what to do with the baby, and decided to get rid of him.

“She finally decided she should drown the baby. She did that in the sink and then she went to her exam,” attorney Will Burrows told reporters.

When Saul returned, she wrapped the baby, who she named George Carlos, in a t-shirt and then placed him in a box. She then placed the box in a backpack, which she put in the trunk of her car.

Three weeks later, the child was discovered in the trunk after Saul loaned her vehicle to a friend, who then was involved in a collision. The driver reportedly fled the scene of the accident, and when firefighters and police arrived, they opened the backpack hoping to find identification.

But officers rather discovered a dead baby, and soon arrested Saul. She reportedly told investigators that she had planned to bury the child.

Saul also asserted that she had become pregnant after being raped at a party while intoxicated.

She had been charged with infanticide, then second-degree murder. In August, her charge was reduced back to infanticide, which carries up to five years behind bars.

“Nothing is going to change what happened, but certainly now Ms. Saul is not a risk to anybody,” her defense attorney, Murray Armstrong, said, according to the Huffington Post. “In terms of punishment, there’s no punishment greater than the guilt and remorse she feels.”

Judge Marchand decried Saul’s act, stating, “It is an abhorrent act and it was inflicted on a vulnerable and completely helpless person.” However, he decided not to sentence her to prison because of how the child had been conceived, and because Saul had committed no other crimes.

Pro-life groups have expressed concern that Saul got off so easy.

“You can hardly even call this a slap on the wrist,” Jack Fonseca of the Campaign Life Coalition told reporters. “The same excuses used to justify abortion are now being applied to justify the murder of children after birth. I think it can be argued that this judge is decriminalizing child murder through the back door, by precedent.”

“This sentence is sickening,” he said. “Societal acceptance of abortion is leading to the acceptance of infanticide, both in individuals like this young B.C. woman, and in the judge who let her free, as well as throughout the rest of society, thanks to the teaching power of the law.”

http://christiannews.net/2016/12/04/canadian-woman-who-drowned-newborn-son-sentenced-only-to-probation-no-jail-time/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy