Skip to comments."Ethicists" argue that ‘after-birth abortions’ are ethical
Posted on 03/02/2012 9:03:45 AM PST by mkleesma
Newborns cannot be considered persons, meaning there is no moral reason not to perform after-birth abortions, argue a pair of Australian ethicists in a controversial paper that has drawn death threats.
The authors, both of whom have worked at Melbourne University, say that killing even a healthy newborn could be acceptable if raising the child would put an unacceptable burden on the family.
(Excerpt) Read more at theglobeandmail.com ...
I’ve read up to age 2 or 3.
I remember seeing an editorial cartoon which depicted the exterior a circa 1770 “Planned Parenthood office”. From inside comes a voice saying something to the effect of: “Your husband is a drunk and beats you and your children; there are too many mouths to feed at home already, and we have conclusive evidence that this child will be disabled by deafness. I strongly recommend termination, Mrs. Beethoven.”
Not even the most savage of beasts on Earth kill their young out of convenience or some such reason - either before or after birth.
Pure evil, no two ways about it.
Come quickly Lord Jesus...
“Actually I strongly agree with that. It was what led to eugenics, which led to even entertaining the concept of things like exterminating the Jews.”
The individual who has been pushing this for a number of years is the chair of bio-ethics at Columbia U.(?) whose name is Peter Singer - a Jew. Ironic, eh?
I consider him a modern day Baruch Spinoza who was so controversial during his time that he was excommunicated from his Jewish community.
Keep in mind that all of this anti-God secular humanism, philosophy, ethics, evolution, eugenics and collectivism has been developed for the past 300 years to lay the groundwork for the extermination of the human race from planet Earth. And in order for it to move forward the world needs secular, amoral, areligious Jews to give its approval.
But the secular age is coming to a close so these sociopathic people are having to advance these anti-God, anti-life ideas as fast as possible and their agenda becomes more and more obvious galvanizing people who were unaware before then.
But the death worshipers aren’t going to be successful since the words of God, via the Jews who have stayed true to them, will prevail because more and more people are deciding to choose life and fight for it.
Very good point !
I think that there is no reason not to end the life of Australian ethicists
True. They should not fear ‘death threats’ because it is only one of the basketful of choices the rest of us have. We can’t support these ethicists. Oh yeah, they look and think different than us so why should we keep them?
I happen to agree with their logic that there is absolutely no difference between killing a baby before birth or after birth.
What is terrifying is the difference in conclusions. Their conclusion is, “Kill them all.”
This is proof that these people are just not wired correctly. The natural thing for any person who sees a baby, a kitten, a puppy, or any baby animal is to feel happiness and joy. They are designed that way with their big eyes and adorable little features.
Anyone who speaks out about killing newborn babies is totally screwed up for thinking it, but especially for talking about it openly.
I’m sorry, but these people need to be forced into therapy, put on medication, put in jail with the rest of the serial killers, or post-birth-aborted themselves.
The same EXACT argument was made in 1930’s germany!!!! Then they moved on to Mentally handicapped and the elderly next...
They they went after the Jews and Homosexuals....
Then they went after the Catholics.....
And no one stood up....
[ Ive read up to age 2 or 3. ]
Maybe some enterprising person can create a brain scanner that detects liberal tendancies and make a “Life Detection Helmet” that has that scanner for their criteria...
At WHAT point to you determine conciousness? At What point is a person living, if it is a spread continium you could ALWAYS keep pushing it till it is legasl to kill a child until they turn 18 or something.....
You could even take their logic and argue that Children or adolescents aren’t even “Human” yet as well. When does it end?
[ ..if raising the child would put an unacceptable burden on the family.”
My Grandmother had to let go of one of her children due to financial reasons and my aunt was adopted by a caring family who couln’t have any children and they were very happy to have her and raise her as a child of their own.
I vote for drawing the line at 21.
From what I have read the qualifications to becoming a “person” that can’t be post-birth aborted is when they become self-aware and sentient. It’s kind of like a guilty until proven innocent way of thinking similar to the British legal system.
The problem with that is you continually grow and become more self-aware until at least age 35 so legally murdering people up to that age could be driven that high.
By not declaring a human being a “person” they are rendered as a “non-person” or also known as “sub-human” back in the Nazi era in Germany who could be killed like an animal without any thought at all.
Think of it from the liberal social point of view as expressed by the secretary of HHS - dead people cost nothing leaving more money for the healthy and strong. Eugenics is a cost saving measure that will help to make a America stronger, balance the budget and reduce taxes!
What, you don’t want a balanced budget?/s/
At what age would it become impermissible to kill someone? For example, I believe all Democrats are mentally deficient. Would it be ethical for me to thin the herd of Democrats?