Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

[Valin]

The Telegragh:

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

A group of ethicists has argued that killing young babies is no different from abortion Photo: Alamy

Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent

29 Feb 2012

 

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says 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.

 

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

 

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

 

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

 

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

 

(Snip)

 

[pollyannaish]

Oh my God.

 

 

[Valin]

Oh my God.

 

Agree. But give them credit for being logically consistent.

[pollyannaish]

I think the thing that is so shocking to me is their willingness to kill the most innocent and helpless in our society. The ones that need the most vigorous protection...because of inconvenience. And yet, they are completely unwilling to take the life of a person who has been convicted of horrific crimes.

 

I'm not sure that IS logical. But it may be instructive.

 

Because of their propensity to see their victims as morally irrelevant, they are in fact motivated by the exact same logic a premeditated murderer uses. And thus, they are a certain kind of soulmate. They are both motivated by the "moral irrelevance" of their victims.

 

The evil described by these "ethicists" is breathtaking. I suppose I am not surprised. But I am still shocked.

[Valin]

I think the thing that is so shocking to me is their willingness to kill the most innocent and helpless in our society. The ones that need the most vigorous protection...because of inconvenience. And yet, they are completely unwilling to take the life of a person who has been convicted of horrific crimes.

 

I'm not sure that IS logical. But it may be instructive.

 

Because of their propensity to see their victims as morally irrelevant, they are in fact motivated by the exact same logic a premeditated murderer uses. And thus, they are a certain kind of soulmate. They are both motivated by the "moral irrelevance" of their victims.

 

The evil described by these "ethicists" is breathtaking. I suppose I am not surprised. But I am still shocked.

 

I see this as an opportunity, a teachable moment to ask some very simple questions...like what does it mean to be a human being and when does this happen? Ask some very inconvenient troubling questions...like the Abortion rate and Blacks, and why are so many abortion mills put in the black community, who Margret Sanger was and her views on race...connecting the dots to a certain former German government. This is a time to take a page from the late great Andrew Breitbart and get in there face, make them confront the reality of abortion.

[SrWoodchuck]

 

 

Quote from, Eugenics: the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left’s closet: http://bunkerville.w...e-lefts-closet/

 

"Eugenics went into steep decline after 1945. Most recoiled from it once they saw where it led – to the gates of Auschwitz. The infatuation with an idea horribly close to nazism was steadily forgotten. But we need a reckoning with this shaming past. Such a reckoning would focus less on today’s advances in selective embryology, and the ability to screen out genetic diseases, than on the kind of loose talk about the “underclass” that recently enabled the prime minister to speak of “neighbours from hell” and the poor as if the two groups were synonymous.

 

Progressives face a particular challenge, to cast off a mentality that can too easily regard people as means rather than ends. For in this respect a movement is just like a person: it never entirely escapes its roots."

 

Founder of Planned Barrenhood, Margaret Sanger:

 

From: http://sago.com/2012...atholic-church/

 

Speaking with CBS veteran journalist Mike Wallace in 1957, long after her racist views had supposedly mellowed, Sanger again revealed her true colors: “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world — that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin — that people can — can commit.”

Sanger also elaborated on her anti-Catholic animus, telling one of Wallace’s reporters that New York Catholics had no right to protest the use of their tax dollars for city birth-control programs: “(I)t’s not only wrong, it should be made illegal for any religious group to prohibit dissemination of birth control — even among its own members.” When Wallace pressed her (“In other words, you would like to see the government legislate religious beliefs in a certain sense?”), Sanger laughed nervously and disavowed the remarks.

Fast forward: Five decades and 16 million aborted black babies later, Planned Parenthood’s insidious agenda has migrated from inner-city “birth control bureaus” to public school-based health clinics to the White House — forcibly funded with taxpayer dollars just as Sanger championed.

 

and...

As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to 'assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.' Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit. Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Continuing the "Cloward-Piven-ing" of the Globe......eugenics is a must......and what could be more progressively secular & less humane....than "boutique babies".....grown primarily for the satisfaction & to the specification of their rightful owners parents? This could also be included, as part of the secular trend to "grow" a "viable organism" as merely a replacement parts vehicle, for an already existing piece of property child.

 

INSANE & INHUMANE....."fundamentally changing" life as we knew it.....