Ethicists Argue for Post Birth Abortions

NC Register ^ | February 27, 2012 | Matthew Archbold

[NYer]

In the Journal of Medical Ethics, two ethicists argue plainly for the killing of babies post birth. They’re not hedging their bets. They’re saying it plain and simple. And I, for one, thank them for it.

Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, associated respectively with Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia, and with the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, in the UK, wrote a piece called “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”

I could buy the article for $30 and I was close to doing it but then I thought why am I giving these animals my money. I’d essentially be paying these “ethicists” to write more about the right of killing humans.

So, in the “abstract” that’s available for free at the site, it says:

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.

Here’s the thing - they’re right. If you accept their premises, they’re absolutely right.

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

An ethicists job is like a magician’s. The main job of both is to distract you from the obvious.

[AirForceMom]

How about starting with themselves?

[Jedidah]

These monsters must not be allowed to call killing a baby after it is born an “abortion.”

It’s murder, infanticide, pure and simple.

[beethovenfan]

Why should these authors live?

[FrdmLvr]

I agree. If you accept their post-birth abortion premise, then why should there be an age-limit on who can be post-aborted. After all, everyone currently living can be considered “post-birth”.

[Le Chien Rouge]

Others who Argued for Post Birth Abortions:

1) Hitler
2) Margret Sanger when referring to Holder’s people
3) Stalin
4) Barrack Obama
5) Jim Jones
6) Pol Pot
7) the KKK when referring to Holder’s people
8) Satanists
9) Castro
10) the Democrat party

[NYer]

They throw around this term “potential person” like it’s a real thing. As if it’s science. But there’s no such thing as potential persons. It’s anti-science. There’s defenseless people. Maybe that’s what they mean. In fact, isn’t that really the point. There’s defenseless people and indefensible ethicists.

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[paterfamilias]

Saint Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into Hell, Satan and all the other evil spirits, who prowl throughout the world, seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

[denydenydeny]

“[Without] a clear boundary to confer personhood on a human being ... we approach a slippery slope that ends in the disposal of inconvenient people”
—Stephen Pinker

[al_c]

speechless ........

[donna]

Peter Singer [Princeton] on post birth abortions

. . . you suggest that it’s OK to kill a baby before it’s 28 days old, because until that time, it is not self-aware and “doesn’t have the same right to life as others . . .

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2354052/posts

[MNDude]

here’s a page that covers more of their arguments:

http://contemplans.wordpress.com/

[Jack Hydrazine]

I’ve read here and there that there are some medical ethicists who propose up to two or three years after a child is born in which a post-birth abortion should be legal.

The mentally insane worshipers of death are doggedly determined to rid the planet of all human beings.

[Malinse]

These “ethicists” are reprobates with no natural affections. They have hardened their hearts toward God and Life. How can someone justify killing a baby after it has left the womb and not see it as murder? And they are wrong about the baby not having the same moral status and one day they will face their Maker and be reminded of what they already knew.

[HerrBlucher]

Its murder in the womb also. These so called ethicists are merely taking the next logical pro choice step.

[Chode]

no problem... start with ALL the RATS in government

[Jack Hydrazine]

The Greeks did post-birth abortions by taking the undesirable child out to remote place and leaving them there. Then the wolves, coyotes or other predators would do the rest.

[Para-Ord.45]

Peter Singer Joins Obama’s Health Care Administrators August 11th, 2009

Singer Says Full Moral Status Not Earned by Babies “Until After 2 Years”

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/11/23/peter-singer-says-full-moral-status-not-earned-by-babies-until-after-2-years/

[combat_boots]

“Obama health care, Glenn Beck, Ezekiel Emanuel, Complete lives system, Ages 15 to 40 get most substantial chance, Sunstein, Focus on life years rather than lives”

August 11, 2009

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/obama-health-care-glenn-beck-ezekiel-emanuel-complete-lives-system-ages-15-to-40-get-most-substantial-chance-sunstein-focus-on-life-years-rather-than-lives/

[Regulator]

Beyond Evil