Carousel begins...
Posted on 02/27/2012 3:11:38 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
I’m really not surprised that we are reaching this “plateau” of decadence.
After all...it is NOT like it has not happened before. Live—birth “abortions” HAVE happened—though it is NOT “accepted”, like “normal” abortions. I recall in 1981 or so, when I was a teen—a movie called”choices” or such—that was about a number of “women” (if one can call them that...) who were having abortions...and ONE of them FULLY delivered the baby—and the “nurse” picked it up and DUMPED it into a BUCKET!!—and carried if off somewhere. Shortly after this—the “”animal”(my term for the “mother”), REGRETTED her decision—and wanted her baby back alive—of course...it was WAY too late by then.
Also...I recall over the years, as far back as 30 years or so ago...that infanticide was predicted by a number of “prophets” I heard speak, in my church, on the radio, etc. Most of them figured if this DID begin to be “accepted” that gericide(killing of the elderly) and general euthanasia was not far behind.
And about 30 years later.....HERE WE ARE.
What next??
We are “up against it” people. The alarm bell is ringing SO loudly!!
But few can even hear it. Their “minds are dead”..from the hedonistic, twisted immoral lives they live.
Like the Christian rock group Petra said about 30 years ago, in the song “angel of Light”.....”they follow in your footsteps like no one ever fell...bumper -to-bumper on a freeway to HELL”. (”your” referring to Satan).
It is about 1937 Germany all over again... and the trains are COMING!!
In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”
Peter Singer's Bold Defense of Infanticide
I can't read any further. The article makes me physically nauseous.
Monstrous. Absolutely monstrous.
These ethicists argue that I should abandon the ethics that have guided me to date.
If I do, I will have no need for ethicists.
Since these ethicists then will produce nothing of value to me, they will then lack personhood as I define it so it is ethical for me to kill them.
Torturing them to death could provide some entertainment for me so that is the course I will take.
Have you ever noticed that when “ethicists” are quoted it is always to promote something unethical?
...
How long before opposing infanticide is denounced in the MSM as a war on women??
Why an age limit indeed?
Philip K. Dick’s anti-Roe v. Wade short-story “The Pre-Persons” had the dystopian vision of an America in which anyone who couldn’t do simple algebra was subject to “abortion”, precisely as a reductio ad absurdum of this sort of demonic causistry.
When the Canadian Supreme Court struck down Canada’s abortion laws back in the 80’s, one of the female judges, Bertha Wilson, was of the opinion that abortion should be permitted for any reason that would interfere with a woman’s “aspirations”. That sort of thinking goes beyond any sort of medical justification and is the very mentality which underlies the horrors which these monsters want to inflict on the innocents. Once a group of judges or politicians decide that they can determine a class of human beings are unworthy of life, then they can determine that any class of human beings are unworthy of life. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Communist China are all proof of that reality. And, sadly, so to is the US, Canada and most of Europe.
When the Canadian Supreme Court struck down Canada’s abortion laws back in the 80’s, one of the female judges, Bertha Wilson, was of the opinion that abortion should be permitted for any reason that would interfere with a woman’s “aspirations”. That sort of thinking goes beyond any sort of medical justification and is the very mentality which underlies the horrors which these monsters want to inflict on the innocents. Once a group of judges or politicians decide that they can determine a class of human beings are unworthy of life, then they can determine that any class of human beings are unworthy of life. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Communist China are all proof of that reality. And, sadly, so to is the US, Canada and most of Europe.
Hum..... can we try it out on them first? See how it goes?
Carousel begins...
The other evil besides murder that happens with abortion is eugenics. After WWII pushed it to the back burner, it is BACK. I'm sure "post birth" abortion would be pushed on say those with birth defects, Down's Syndrome, gay genes (if true), Cerebal Palsy, and I can go down the list. That's what these people want - to eliminate those people. In their minds, their lives aren't worth living.
I don't always agree with Sarah Palin, but she has my respect on the life issue. She lives it. The media and leftists had it out for her for one reason. She kept a Down's baby and exposed abortion for what it is not just by talk, but action.
bump
I was just about to post about PK Dick’s Pre-Persons.
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.