Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Telegraph ^ | 4/12/2012 | Staff Writers

Posted on 04/12/2012 5:00:22 AM PDT by IbJensen

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”.

-snip-

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”.

-snip-

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.”

-snip-

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.

-snip-

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."

...Dr Stammers added: "This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide."

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortionafterbirth; babykillers; moralabsolutes; murderingchildren; prolife; shameofamerica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
The irony is that the same individuals who are willing to support these ideas are vehemently opposed to the death penalty.

On one hand you have an innocent life with the whole world before them. On the other you have an individual who breaks the rules of society as they see fit. Punishing the innocent and forgiving the guilty contains no common sense at all.

To satisfy the baby-haters, why not allow the parents to withhold their right to abort a child until age 15? That way they could see if the child was indeed developing the behavior pattern they established. If not, euthanize. Same damned difference!

1 posted on 04/12/2012 5:00:24 AM PDT by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Then, by extension, killing these so-called “experts” is also OK?


2 posted on 04/12/2012 5:02:04 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few and let another take his office. - Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
ending their lives is no different to abortion

Which is why abortion is so obviously wrong.
3 posted on 04/12/2012 5:02:18 AM PDT by andyk (Go Juan Pablo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

These experts are moral failures unless they off themselves as soon as possible.


4 posted on 04/12/2012 5:04:26 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
These experts are moral failures unless they off themselves as soon as possible.

Where's Dr. Kevorkian when you REALLY need him?

/sarc

5 posted on 04/12/2012 5:07:05 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few and let another take his office. - Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

He’s dead Jim!


6 posted on 04/12/2012 5:09:23 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty; Mrs. B.S. Roberts

I would like to inquire if the “beliefs” of these “MEDICAL ETHICISTS” is much removed from the cultured, logical, and carefully thought out justification for the building and utilization of the NAZI concentration/extermination centers.
Would these “people” nod with agreement at the vast piles of tiny clothes and toys taken from those infants and children being driven into the gas chambers? I’m serious.
Would these “people” smile at the accumulation of prosthetic limbs, taken from those who could “no longer function” to the betterment of society.
It starts, but WHERE does it end?


7 posted on 04/12/2012 5:09:59 AM PDT by CaptainAmiigaf ( NY Times: We print the news as it fits our views.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

If that is true, can we advocate the post birth abortion of say the president or the prime minister?

Would a post birth abortion sidestep the various laws against assassination?


8 posted on 04/12/2012 5:10:24 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

this is why leftists with common sense(I’m thinking Ed Koch) considers late term abortions the same as infanticide.

instead of embracing the reality of late term abortions being infanticide...the extra-loony left decides that infanticide should be legitimized.


9 posted on 04/12/2012 5:14:14 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

“Journal of Medical Ethics”? Was the founder Joseph Mengele?


10 posted on 04/12/2012 5:14:28 AM PDT by 6SJ7 (Meh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bert

In today’s world, made evil by politicians and bureaucrats, anything’s possible.


11 posted on 04/12/2012 5:15:54 AM PDT by IbJensen (We now have a government requiring citizens prove they are insured but not that they are citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen; All
Mitt's pro-infanticide track record:

YEAR Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life'
Bottom-Line Summary: ANN Romney Lies Thru Her Teeth Ann Romney, 1994: Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (Ann Romney’s Planned Parenthood Donation Ann Romney, 2011: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)
Bottom-Line Summary: Mitt Romney Lies Thru His Teeth “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) + ...”my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007) So, not only does Ann Romney tell Parade Magazine November 2011 that they've “never changed” re: abortion and that they've “always been pro-life,” but Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace part-way through their 2007 campaign that: “I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice”...This was seven months after he said in January 2007 that he was “always for life.”
Romney, goin' back to 1970 when Romney's Mom ran for Senate "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"
1994 (Campaign) "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support – “sustain” ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word “sustain” for support for their own “prophet” Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007)
1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) → 2001 (a) Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/ann-romneys-planned-parenthood-donation/">Ann Romney’s Planned Parenthood Donation (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: "Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; "Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; "In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts 2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)
2002-2004 “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again? Nov. '04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)
2005 May 27 2005: Romney affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04! What about his gubernatorial record '03-'06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in '05 some 'pro-life' decisions. "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an '02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, '05 press conference commitment as well. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine
2006 April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details). "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates
Early 2007 On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true? Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!
Summer 2007 "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at '94 & '02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?" Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = Whatever he was from '70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion 'inlook' or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?
December 2007 vs. November 2011 (Pro-treating offspring as research refuse late in previous POTUS campaign vs. now claiming 'never changed...always pro-life' December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!" In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)

12 posted on 04/12/2012 5:21:13 AM PDT by Colofornian ( It's not even 'conservative convictions' be damned anymore; they've ALREADY BEEN anathematized.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

The irony is that it is true - Killing babies IS no different from abortion because preborn children are babies too -

That’s the very reason abortion is wrong!

Preborn children are also fetuses but that does not cause them not to be babies (persons!). For example: A toddler is a toddler and also a person, a teenager is a teenager and also a person, etc... a fetus is a fetus and also a baby (person), etc.

Anyway this evil premise exists in the US too - Peter Singer at Princeton for example.


13 posted on 04/12/2012 5:22:09 AM PDT by stonehouse01 (Equal rights for unborn women)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

“Where’s Dr. Kevorkian when you REALLY need him?”

Hitler’s grandson is available.

http://www.thenewage.co.za/48243-1020-53-I_am_Hitlers_grandson_French_plumber


14 posted on 04/12/2012 5:23:00 AM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
The accepted killing of newborn babies because they are not "normal", or even not MALE, is something which happens, and is happening in some parts of the world, when human life is devalued.

This, among others, is a true danger of an abortion-on-demand culture. The slide from unrestricted abortions to partial-birth abortions to post-birth abortions is indeed not a great one.

Then the slide continues further - kill the newborn baby because it's disabled, kill the baby because it's not male, kill the baby because the DNA or skin color shows it's not the husband's child, kill the mother for the same reason.

Ironically, many women see the pro-choice view as the pro-woman view. But since brutality is generally the domain of males, when you allow a brulal act to become accepted, it will inevitably turn against the weaker sex.

Fantasy, some would say. But in China's one-child culture it is happening today with selective aborting of female fetuses, or in some rural parts of the country, female babies. And naturally, we can turn to some middle eastern countries for examples of the "justifiable" killing of women for adultery.
15 posted on 04/12/2012 5:33:01 AM PDT by zencycler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

-—Then, by extension, killing these so-called “experts” is also OK?-—

(Rimshot) They didn’t see that one coming.

True idiots.


16 posted on 04/12/2012 5:34:41 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: andyk

Yep....and I guarantee you that these droolers totally miss the irony.


17 posted on 04/12/2012 5:34:50 AM PDT by RightOnline (I am Andrew Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

It’s really too bad the parent of these “experts” didn’t feel the same.


18 posted on 04/12/2012 5:38:19 AM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
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 irony here is that by making this so obviously flawed argument these self-same "medical ethicists" have shown they lack any moral character and are divorced from the common human experience. Thus they themselves are "morally irrelevant" and by their own logic should be murdered by their parents.

19 posted on 04/12/2012 5:40:30 AM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obama now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Thanks for posting this. It is going to go straight to a lib niece of mine.... she and I had a heated discussion about abortion about 25 years ago and I argued with her at the time that two outcomes would soon be upon us.... 1. That a price tag would be put on ‘baby parts’ and thus abortion would be a grand money making scheme all marketed under the guise of ‘women's rights’ and 2. At some point, the argument would be made that ‘it's not really a child unless some arbitrary threshold of cognitive functions were passed (or some other equally inane metric).' She sneered at my suggestions and said neither would happen...well, the first has been true for quite some time now and the second obviously is being discussed.
20 posted on 04/12/2012 5:41:15 AM PDT by hecticskeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline

On the bright side,
your average
“wanna feel good about myself because I’m a good person but I support a woman’s right to choose but don’t want to admit I support baby murder”

sheeperal will have no place to hide now.


21 posted on 04/12/2012 5:45:18 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
the article's authors had received death threats

And why not? Since they too can easily be reclassified as "not a real person". Why should age be relevant if birth is not?

22 posted on 04/12/2012 5:45:56 AM PDT by OrangeHoof (Obama: The Dr. Kevorkian of the American economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Another thought...

...because they are “morally irrelevant”...

Their whole argument seems to be based around a false premise. That is, life somehow has to be justified, have some meaning, some worth. Perhaps these ethicists should look up the words "intrinsic" and "inalienable" then reconsider.

It is the same fundamental flaw in thinking that leads people to do/say the stupidest things. For example, the 2nd Amendment identifies an inalienable right. Yet there are still people out there who want others to somehow justify their possession of firearms. Has anyone ever questioned your 1st Amendment rights? Anyone ever said why should you be allowed to speak or express yourself? No, that's absurd. So is saying you must justify a need/use for a firearm or not be allowed to possess one.

Same flawed thinking reflected here. This notion that without some moral relevancy a life has no value and can be terminated. I wonder, what do people who espouse this kind of drivel feel if/when they see their error? The realization of sheer idiocy of their previous statements must be crushing.

23 posted on 04/12/2012 5:52:03 AM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obama now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk; RightOnline

Abortion rights advocates have spent decades arguing that the “fetus” is not the “baby.” These guys (likely embraced and admired by liberals) just reconnected the two. Beautiful!


24 posted on 04/12/2012 6:10:03 AM PDT by OldCountryBoy (You can't make this stuff up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Killing babies no different from abortion

DUH!

What did they think they were killing, frogs? And who the hell are these "experts." How can you be an "expert" when it comes to killing American babies?

25 posted on 04/12/2012 6:22:23 AM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Okay, how do you get that and then try to make that argument? Teh Stupid…it burns.
26 posted on 04/12/2012 6:31:18 AM PDT by RichInOC (No! BAD Rich! (What'd I say?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

I would say yes, using their reasoning: they do nothing to justify their existence and simply suck at the public teat.


27 posted on 04/12/2012 6:40:43 AM PDT by Adder (Da bro has GOT to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Adder

Pharaoh or King Herod ring a bell????


28 posted on 04/12/2012 6:46:39 AM PDT by nevermorelenore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

Excellent. I have never heard such a solid and succint argument which should have been so obvious. The fetus vs. person argument is a false choice, as you have said so well.


29 posted on 04/12/2012 6:52:47 AM PDT by Anima Mundi (ENVY IS JUST PASSIVE, LAZY GREED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Peter Singer, a professor at Princeton, has been saying this for a while.


30 posted on 04/12/2012 6:52:49 AM PDT by Pharmboy (She turned me into a Newt...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainAmiigaf; IbJensen
It starts, but WHERE does it end?

If you want part of that answer, read "The Beating Heart Donors" in the current (May) issue of "Discover" Magazine. It presents some very ugly facts about the organ transplant business -- and yes, it's a business, just like abortion, and currently racks up $20 billion a year.

The term "beating heart cadavers" (BHC) has been coined for donors whose condition meets the current (and very controversial!) definition of brain death. Yet these BHCs can perform most normal bodily functions and can even bear babies. There's strong evidence they can also feel excruciating pain during the lengthy organ-harvesting surgeries.

As the article's pull-quote says: "The organ trade claims transplants are the neat extraction of body parts from totally dead, unfeeling corpses. But it's more complicated and messier than that."

Others can decide for themselves but I'm in the process of reversing my previous decision to be an organ donor.

31 posted on 04/12/2012 6:56:18 AM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

It’s not murder when they do it.

They were against the idea that abortion was killing a baby back then, but now it is the same?

They cannot have it both ways.


32 posted on 04/12/2012 7:00:47 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Once you say murder of any kind, ie. abortion, is OK, then all murder is OK.


33 posted on 04/12/2012 7:11:04 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Over half of U.S. murders are of black people, and 90% of them are committed by other black people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

This is awesome! What a “Modest Proposal”...


34 posted on 04/12/2012 7:30:34 AM PDT by Paradox (I want Obama defeated. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Please see:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2871112/posts?page=10#10

The cult of Moloch (Ba’al), bearing a multitude of names, has been with us since the time of the ancient Hebrews. But its one commonality is to always demand the blood sacrifice of infants to its god.


35 posted on 04/12/2012 7:31:56 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("It is already like a government job," he said, "but with goats." -- Iranian goat smuggler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

The "experts" are correct, there is ZERO DIFFERENCE between abortion and killing a baby or a toddler or teenager or adult.

36 posted on 04/12/2012 7:36:16 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

WOW, the slippery slope just gets steeper and slicker!

If you don’t want a living child, put him or her up for adoption, for Heaven’s sake! There are good hearts out there looking for children to adopt. Its not like the orphanages are overflowing with unwanted children.


37 posted on 04/12/2012 7:37:41 AM PDT by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

That is the heart of this debate, their assumption that abortion is ethical and morally acceptable. These people clearly illustrate the evil of abortion, as they are now stretching the justification of murder to include infants. How long now before anybody who they deem unfit will be on the list?


38 posted on 04/12/2012 7:40:53 AM PDT by cbvanb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Bump


39 posted on 04/12/2012 7:44:52 AM PDT by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
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”. -snip- 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”.

No, sounds more like the threateners have decided that the article's authors are not actual persons and do not have a moral right to life.* In Other Words, they are attempting to hoist them upon their own petard.

And "Practical ethics"??? can we file that one under military intelligence, jumbo shrimp, and other such contradictions in terms?

* just reporting, not advocating

40 posted on 04/12/2012 7:45:55 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Steyn: Obama sez: "Nice little Supreme Court you got here. Shame if anything were to happen to it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Are the innocent victims of collateral damage morally irrelevant also?


41 posted on 04/12/2012 7:49:46 AM PDT by stuartcr ("In this election year of 12, how deep into their closets will we delve?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
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.

******************************

Why are "medical ethicists" so often lacking in morality?

42 posted on 04/12/2012 8:15:22 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
I double-checked the date of publication. It wasn't April 1st.

This is where we're headed.

Fast.

43 posted on 04/12/2012 8:52:45 AM PDT by BfloGuy (The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
....... and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

They're absolutely right on this point. Abortion IS killing a baby.

Murder is murder.

Too bad they don't see THAT point.

44 posted on 04/12/2012 9:22:07 AM PDT by metmom ( For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zencycler

Well said.


45 posted on 04/12/2012 9:26:41 AM PDT by metmom ( For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

You are ABSOKUTELY correct!!

Liberals will lie. They will create their own facts. They will even believe their own fabrications.

Occassionally, there is one who sees the facts as they are. They see the facts truly and correctly; they see facts that both they and we conservatives can agree on. AND THEY DRAW EXACTLY THE WRONG CONCLUSIONS.

How is this possible?? I do not know; but Satan will explain it to them when they come into HIS kingdom.


46 posted on 04/12/2012 9:39:35 AM PDT by chesley (Eat what you want, and die like a man. Never trust anyone who hasn't been punched in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

This is pure evil.

I have a grand-niece who is expecting twins in mid-June. She has been married nearly 5 years and she wants to be a Mom - desperately! She has suffered two miscarriages and one stillborn daughter who was only 2 weeks from full-term when the cord strangled the infant. This couple is praying so hard for God to grant them a safe birth for their twins. Every day that she keeps the twins in her womb is a day for rejoicing.

People who write such evil things consider themselves ethicists???? What sort of idiocy have we come to?


47 posted on 04/12/2012 9:53:54 AM PDT by Gumdrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

For forty years they mocked anyone who said that abortion put us on a “slippery slope” to infanticide.


48 posted on 04/12/2012 9:58:16 AM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative (I'm a constitutionalist, not a libertarian. Huge difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

They're right: therefore babies should not be killed before OR after birth.

49 posted on 04/12/2012 2:59:49 PM PDT by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative

It’s not a slippery slope.

It’s the same thing.


50 posted on 04/12/2012 3:01:04 PM PDT by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson