Good news - Killing babies no different from abortion

Coming to a clinic near you...

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 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’.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html

Where have we heard these rationalizations before? Note... "They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion”... I prefer to call it infanticide. How about you?

Anyone with this mindset is beyond sick, this thinking is purely EVIL. I'm not religious but I really hope there is a hell for these sick f#$ks.

CritiKalbILL wrote: Anyone with this mindset is beyond sick, this thinking is purely EVIL. I'm not religious but I really hope there is a hell for these sick f#$ks.

I'm just wondering if any 285 Bounder's thinks that this could be a model for our future. How far can the rights to make decisions about a life form that came from someone's womb extend. Is the some basis for "ownership" in that life form, for the ability to decide if that life form will be a productive "unit" in someone's life and for society in general?

Science Chic wrote:
[snip]

I myself think that if after-birth abortions are permitted that it will open up a slippery slope down which we should not even think of traveling. At what age would the cutoff be deemed acceptable? 3 days, 3 months, 3 years? Allowing for more periods in which a life can be exterminated doesn't solve the problem; what needs to be done is improved birth control access (mandatory birth control? That would be another fun debate), improved education, and better support for those who would terminate a pregnancy for the mere financial reasons or societal condemnation for the age at which they conceived.

Maybe we should consider a solution that was proposed, modestly, in 1729...

”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

I've updated this proposal, and submitted it as a possible bill for the house... it reads as follows...

[center:2esdwvuy]Poverty Reduction Act of 2012[/center:2esdwvuy]
For every child, 2 years of age or younger, acquired by the United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, the parent of the child will receive either a cash payment of 2000 dollars or 3000 dollars will be deposited in a medical savings plan. The woman can also opt for a sterilization procedure, for which she will be paid an additional 2000 dollars which can also be taken as a cash payment or added to her medical savings plan.

The “Poverty Reduction Act of 2012” is designed to increase the income level of the family or single parent, which will help them to become a self-sustainable member of society, reduce our burden of over-population and break the cycle of crime that is prevalent among our low-income citizens.

This will also enable more parents to enter the job market, becoming freed from dependency on multiple government programs.

The act will not rely on taxpayers money. It will pay for itself from the sales of the food products created from the children enrolled in the program. The low cost of the food product will also benefit all Americans, as it can be used as a substitute for higher priced meats.

(source - The Liberals GOP Twin)

Maybe I can get some public support from 285 Bounder's to get this bill passed?

It's refreshing to see some of those from the culture of death finally admit that there is no moral distinction between life in the womb and life that has emerged from the womb. Unfortunately they have decided to take this truth and apply it incorrectly to extend the denial of the natural right to life that each human life is endowed upon its creation with rather than to correctly point out that the current pro-abortion arguments fail because there is no moral difference between life in the womb and life which has emerged from the womb. This is little more than an argument hoping to extend the specious position that some human beings aren't really human beings at all.

The very same argument that SC uses to describe why post-birth abortions should not be allowed is entirely consistent with the argument that those who oppose post-conception abortions for contraceptive purposes have been forwarding for quite some time now. If life is about dealing with traumatic events, as SC suggests, rather than trying to make life less traumatic by giving up the children for adoption, then the argument for in utero abortions also fails when this logic is applied, does it not?

As for your ruminations on capital punishment versus infanticide SC, that is quite simple to reconcile. The person who has insisted on denying to others their natural rights - including their natural right to life - has done so with an intent to harm others, to deny to them those rights. It is a decision which they have made and for which society has decided merits a punishment of forfeiting their own life. No one in society is safe from such a person - including their fellow inmates and the employees of the penitentiary in which they are incarcerated. Capital punishment is not a deterrent, it is not an act of retribution, it is an expression of the ultimate punishment which is reserved for those convicted of committing the ultimate crimes. Take a look at the most recent example in Texas. The person who was punished with the forfeiture of their own life had been convicted of a crime, sentenced to a lengthy prison term, escaped from the penitentiary along with 6 others, robbed a store, shot a law enforcement officer and then ran them over with a vehicle to avoid being captured. The only means of protecting society from a person as this is to punish them with the forfeiture of their own life for clearly they have absolutely no regards for the life of anyone else and consider that every life other than their own is as disposable as the alleged ethicists in the article mentioned earlier believe the unborn and the recently born are.

And really, improved birth control access? Anyone can walk into nearly any store and purchase birth control devices. Condoms, spermicidal sponges, lubes and sprays, contraceptive prescriptions available upon request even for minors without parental consent - I think there is already plenty of access to birth control for those who are desiring of it. Yes, it will cost you a little money to indulge your desire to engage in procreational activities and minimize your exposure to the natural consequences of indulging those desires, but access to the items which limit your exposure is not lacking at all.

A little off topic but this discussion reminds me of some questions asked by George Carlin in an old HBO special I saw on Netflix the other day.

How come when it's us it's called an abortion and when it's a chicken it's an omelette?

If a fetus is human, then why aren't they counted in the Census?

If you ask someone how many kids they have they might say "two, and one on the way". Why don't they say "three"?

Contains strong language
[youtube][/youtube]

Science Chic wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: The only means of protecting society from a person as this is to punish them with the forfeiture of their own life <snip>

I absolutely disagree with this statement. It is not the only means of protecting society and as you yourself admitted, capital punishment is not a deterrent, which is an argument that I hear all too often as a justification for capital punishment. I understand that to have a civilized society in which members restrain themselves from entirely selfish acts in order to help the collective whole requires punishment for acts that harm the whole, but who are we to decide that certain acts require taking a life? In other cultures, committing adultery merits death, but we certainly don't condone that in our culture, so who's to say that murder should merit death?

Rehabilitation is possible in some circumstances, as is permanent isolation from the rest of society, so no, capital punishment is not the only means of protecting society.

PrintSmith wrote: And really, improved birth control access? Anyone can walk into nearly any store and purchase birth control devices. Condoms, spermicidal sponges, lubes and sprays, contraceptive prescriptions available upon request even for minors without parental consent - I think there is already plenty of access to birth control for those who are desiring of it. Yes, it will cost you a little money to indulge your desire to engage in procreational activities and minimize your exposure to the natural consequences of indulging those desires, but access to the items which limit your exposure is not lacking at all.

Yes, anyone can walk into a store and purchase birth control, but how many out there can afford birth control? How many don't understand the proper use of birth control? How many are uneducated as actual risks of each method and make informed decisions? How many get pregnant because they have selfish ulterior motives (preventing a boyfriend from leaving, wishing greater free support, wanting someone who will love them unconditionally without understanding the consequences of the responsibilities, etc)? Yes, people should be more responsible, but you can say that until you are blue in the face and it won't solve our problems - I'm looking for solutions, not justifying that I'm better than everyone else because I know better and I wouldn't make those crappy decisions. That's why I had in parentheses about mandatory birth control as a subject for discussion - I think if we truly want to reduce the number of abortions performed, then we should look at starting people on birth control as soon as they become fertile and they have to consciously choose to go off of it in order to conceive - eliminates most accidental/unintended pregnancies right then and there. But then the slippery slope of "who gets to choose" when they are allowed to go off of birth control arises - is it automatic when someone turns 18? Do they get to quit anytime they want, or are there conditions that should be met (maybe tying financial assistance to meeting those conditions): Gets married? Has been married x number of years? Has a stable job? Owns a home? Passes psychological tests and is declared a fit parent? Do you see how it could get ugly really fast? Each condition requires government oversight, more bureaucracy, more possible abuse/fraud, but maybe less welfare overall, and a possible solution to overpopulation. I'd be interested to hear everyone else's thoughts on this.

"Who are we to decide that certain acts require taking a life" - It's decided by the individual states and the federal government retains the death penalty for such non-murder offenses as treason, espionage and crimes under military jurisdiction - simple. We are not other cultures.

Free Birth Control & Annual Exams http://www.plannedparenthood.org/mbpp/f ... s-2656.htm
(proper use of birth control pills - put in mouth, swallow... dosage on package)

Free Marriage Counseling - http://www.marriagemax.com/blog/categor ... ng-online/

Don't thank me.

Science Chic wrote: Rehabilitation is possible in some circumstances, as is permanent isolation from the rest of society, so no, capital punishment is not the only means of protecting society.

Need I remind you that the leader of the "Texas 7", the man alluded to in my earlier post, was isolated from society to punish him for his previous crime and escaped that isolation prior to stealing thousands of dollars in an armed robbery and killing the law enforcement officer? And how would you punish one sentenced to life with no possibility of parole for the killing of one person who then kills someone in the penitentiary in which that sentence is being served? Give them another life sentence without possibility of parole for that murder? There is in actuality no additional penalty imposed in such a circumstance for the additional crime that they have committed since they were never getting out of the penitentiary to begin with. There's some ink on a paper which says they have received additional punishment, but that is the extent of the additional punishment that they have received. Additionally, any governor can grant clemency for any State offense and any president can grant clemency for any federal offense. Thus even a sentence of permanent isolation is not as able to guarantee to the society that this individual will do it no further harm as capital punishment is.

If one is unable to afford $3 for a pack of condoms, one is equally unable to afford a child and should not be indulging their sexual desires in a manner which opens up the possibility of a pregnancy resulting from their indulging their sexual desires. Greater access to, new speak from "progressives" for "free", contraception is no more of a guarantee that they will properly use that contraception than paid for access to it is and in fact, if history of "free" in other areas is taken as prelude, more likely to result in it not properly being used. "Free" housing in publicly financed housing has not been shown to result in greater care being taken of the housing that others are providing - in fact the opposite is true. When a teenager is given a car for "free" instead of having to work and save for it, they are much less likely to be interested in taking proper care of the car than they are when it was bought and paid for with their money.

And as far as the Sanger inspired mandatory contraception argument goes, well, all I have to say about that is that it might have taken a while for the "progressive" intent to finally reappear and show itself after decades of being denied, but many of us were convinced that this was the ultimate end game all along. Decrease the undesirable population, ie the poor, by convincing them it is in their best interest, and society's, for them to voluntarily agree to sterilize themselves so that they are unable to breed more poor people. Entice them to voluntarily destroy the life that they do create via the repugnant process of abortion and then suggest that this tragedy can be avoided if they willingly sterilize themselves if they prove resistive to sterilizing themselves initially in order to accomplish the end goal of sterilizing them for the good of society. It's all insidious SC, and all so predictable. They are going to have sex anyway because they are incapable of restraint, so we might as well encourage them to indulge their desires and simply protect ourselves from the consequences by getting them to voluntarily sterilize themselves without letting on that this is our intent. Fairly routine SOP for despotic governments. At least China is up front about it and tells their citizens that they don't have a choice in the matter - that they will be punished for having more than a single child because the central governing authority has determined that society will be better off if this is done. I'd really rather that our "progressive" population would be equally up front about what it is they are trying to accomplish rather than continuing with all this pretense.