I've always held that abortion is murder. The reason abortion is equivalent to murder is bumper sticker simple: "If it's not a baby, you're not pregnant".
So now that we have established abortion is murder all we are arguing about is, "At what point in time does the mother have the right to murder their child?" Is it less than 26 weeks? Or maybe it should be less than 3 years old? The logic is pretty simple.
I guess my argument has gone mainstream....
From The Telegraph:
1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 201
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.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”.[Emphasis Added]
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’.
From the Abstract of the actual paper:
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.
So, given the moral relativism of the modern-day liberal (whether it is the Supreme Court Justice who says the U.S. Constitution is a 'living breathing document' subject to interpretation based on changing mores or it is a president who equates the burning of a Quran with the killing of American soldiers) none of this should especially be surprising.
Now, let's think about this... According to this report, "After-birth Abortions" are ethical and moral and Obama's Independent Payment Advisory Board [i.e., "Death Panels"] are charged with limiting the cost of health care to the federal budget by determining who qualifies for the expense of caring for certain illnesses.
Now, cleared of the moral and ethical responsibility of killing children who may be born with "severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to not be worth living..." the IPAB [Death Panels] can require doctors to kill the child using approved 'After-birth Abortion' techniques. Just think about that....
Do any of us wonder why our nation may have fallen out of favor with our Creator?
No comments:
Post a Comment