Posted on 03/04/2012 2:37:48 PM PST by geraldmcg
An article entitled After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live? was recently published in the London-based Journal of Medical Ethics, advocating that if abortion is allowed, then society also has the right to kill a newborn child. This outrageous deduction by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva takes abortion to its logical conclusion.
The abstract states: “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.”
The authors are willing to admit that handicapped children are able to live happy lives but then advocate that, because of their burden on the rest of the family, the children should be able to be killed. If the test for one’s life continuing was based on not burdening someone else, everyone’s life would fail at one point or another. The question then becomes how burdensome must you be to merit your murder?
It is revolting to consider, and even more so to advocate for, the right to kill a perfectly formed, helpless newborn baby. This shocking position should stir a second look at legalized abortion. If our society is unwilling to accept the right to kill newborns, and even older children, why do we allow the murder of the unborn? The destruction of another human being - regardless of his age, his size, or his ability - should never be allowed.
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented: “Abortion opens the door to infanticide. If you can kill a child in the womb, even up to the moment before birth, then there is no logical reason to protect life after birth. A human being begins at the moment of conception and should be afforded legal protection at all stages of life. This is the only logically defensible position. It is shocking to see people advocating killing children after they are born. It is just as shocking to see people advocating killing them before they are born.”
© 2012 Liberty Counsel
You may contact Alberto Giubilini and Francesa Minerva by email to discuss their "findings":
Alberto.Giubilini@monash.edu, francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au
I say these two un-ethicists should be the first candidates for late post term abortions.
Barack Hussein Obama is okay with that.
“This outrageous deduction by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva takes abortion to its logical conclusion.”
I don’t make that outrageously-wrong and delusiuonal, conclusional-leap, for some reason.
They are naturally the first test subjects. I need to squeeze their essence between my toes. My toes itch. Can we get on with this?
“We read about the Action Groups (Einsatzgruppen) and wondered how to find a way to justify what they did morally. We think we have found a way.”
This alone, proves how vile abortionists are. Killing babies after they are born is the next step. It is what the abortion argument is all about. It should all stop now!
Let me rephrase their arguments for Australians:
“By showing that (1) Aborigines do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that they are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) training them to function as servants is not always in the best interest of white people, the authors argue that what we call ‘Aborigine abortion’ (killing Aborigines) should be permissible in all the cases where Aborigines might be a nuisance, including cases where the Aborigine is not able to function as a servant.”
SICK! SICK < SICK!!!
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.