Posted on 04/01/2013 7:58:49 AM PDT by Morgana
In testimony that shocked Florida legislators, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood explained that “her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.” But what else should we expect from an organization that has made countless millions of dollars off the killing of unborn babies?
As reported March 29, 2012 by the Weekly Standard, these legislators were “considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion,” similar to the Born Alive Protection Act that Barack Obama voted against four times before he was president.
Rep. Jim Boyd was so taken aback by the testimony of Alisa LaPolt Snow, the Planned Parenthood lobbyist, that he said to her, “So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief. If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”
She replied, “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
What? The baby survives an abortion in a Planned Parenthood clinic and is fighting for its life, and Planned Parenthood isn’t willing to say, “Yes, we want to see the baby’s life saved”? Of course not. If it was up to the mother and doctor to terminate the baby’s life inside the womb, why not continue the barbaric act outside the womb?
Rep. Jose Oliva, also incredulous, asked Snow, “You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”
Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider,” to which Oliva rightly countered, “I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?”
Snow was obviously caught off guard and could only reply, “That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that. I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this.”
In other words, even I can’t pretend to defend my own ridiculous position here.
And what would Planned Parenthood say about the actions of Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell? He was charged “with murdering seven babies born alive and with the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar, who died during an abortion in November of 2009.”
Specifically, these were “seven recently born babies whose necks were stabbed with scissors and whose spinal cords were slit” by Gosnell. But if we follow the rationale of Planned Parenthood, what did he do that was so terrible? After all, the mother wanted to terminate her baby’s life and the doctor simply made sure it happened, inside or outside the womb. Why should he face criminal charges? (We’re not discussing Gosnell’s alleged involvement in the death of Karamaya Mongar.)
Remarkably, earlier this year, “a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University” published an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics arguing that, “Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are ‘morally irrelevant’ and ending their lives is no different to abortion.” (This is not a fabricated story.)
According to the article, “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.”
This would include a baby born with Downs Syndrome whose condition had not been diagnosed by prenatal testing? By all means, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, the authors of the article argue, the parents should have the right to kill the baby. (I’m literally getting chills of disgust as I type these words.)
And these are “medical ethicists” linked to Oxford University, not Nazi doctors linked to the Third Reich (although they might well have served Hitler with distinction with “ethics” like this).
Giubilini and Minerva 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.” Yes, kill a healthy, unwanted baby too!
Not surprisingly, “The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics [and a colleague of the two authors], said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article,” which is completely understandable although not justifiable.
But rather than saying he had made a terrible error by publishing such dangerous – literally, murderous – drivel, Savulescu stated that “those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were ‘fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.’”
This is perverted academic arrogance at the highest (really lowest) imaginable level, but the professor simply stated directly what Planned Parenthood’s Alisa LaPolt Snow wasn’t willing to say: Only fanatics oppose our good work, and we are committed to taking the lives of unwanted babies. So if we can’t finish the job in the womb, we’re happy to do so outside the womb.
God help us.
I’m only glad that these”MURDERERS”are FINALLY showing us their TRUE COLORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Amen
Pure evil.
Anyone, and I mean ANYONE who supports a Democrat has blood on their hands. I don’t care if said Democrat claims they’re “pro-life”, having a Democrat politician occupy any seat, whether U.S. House or Senate, or state general assembly, advances this party’s platform.
And after the election in November, I heard many “GOP” pundits and party officials on Fox News & elsewhere declare that if the GOP wishes to remain relevant, it should soften its pro-life stance against abortion. To those individuals I say this: Once we start legalizing the state-sanctioned killing of innocents, no one can be guaranteed of their own life. If you wish to deny the unalienable right to life as stated in the Constitution, then your Republican party will go the way of the Whigs & America has no remaining hope. You are part of the problem. Period.
Wonder how Planned Parenthood would feel if they were aborted?
But again and again they are caught doing exactly that.
I swear reading the news today, I feel as though I am going through it
all over again.
BTW - One of their ingenious techniques for killing people was a low fat,
no protein soup in which they could conduct their slow killings and time them
according to the amount of fat they put in the soup.
Planned Parenthood is way past due for a good Nuremburg treatment.
Anyway, that is the backdrop. The past 3 Thursdays (the day the local sale barn auctions take place) I have taken animals to the sale. Today I will pen 2 or 3 older cows and ship them on Thursday. This is managment for my animals. These are decisions I make regarding these animals as to whether they live or die. Some of the younger steers will go to the wheat fields to gain weight or to a feed lot to be 'finished' to produce to final product and quality of beef the American public wants. The older cows will be slaughtered within the week. I do not consider this a moral delima as these animals are not compelled by objective morality. I treat my stock with care. I do not mistreat them or hurt them. I do everything I can to be certain they are cared for. Then they are slaughtered for food.
WHAT IN HELL ARE THESE MEDICAL ETHICISTS SAYING? Are humans just a pen of cattle? These thoughts are insane by the keepers of the culture who change policies by changing the meaning of words or by a unilaterally declared euphemism. They expect the American public to be lulled into complacency regarding the selective killing of a set of people who cannot speak for themselves. Perhaps we will remain silent. But complicity by silence, does not absolve us or them of failure to acknowlege an objective moral truth. Is it true or is it false that it is objectively morally wrong to torture an infant? Or, is it simply an option to seize? The medical ethicists at Oxford seem to think it is a reasonable option to kill a newborn. I believe most Americans reject this notion. The collective wisdom of the American population will mostly, eventually get it right...at least that has been our history. Now, I am not so sure we will get it right. Abortion, infanticide, mercy killing, euthanasia, and our last move into codifying the moral validity of homosexuality seems to say we are getting a lot of things wrong.
What I do know is that it is wrong to kill innocent babies and it does not require a lot of thought on the subject.
I think these medical ethecists worship at the alter of resources which they think are more important than human life. But if humans beings have no intrinsic moral value, then there are no human rights. I have never heard of Black Angus Rights. We have all heard of human rights. So why do these medical ethiscists want to treat human beings like black angus cattle?
Then this article will probably make you sick. It’s about killing babies up to year after birth.
ironically & sadly, some of those who are perfectly okay with a mother/doctor kiliing an infant born alive in an abortion procedure, would be quie upset with your raising cattle for food.
Gates are wide open, now. Why shouldn’t they be able to “post abort” a one month old baby? Or a six month old?
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.