Next step in the slippery slope...post birth abortions. LAGC must be so proud.

[Oswald Bastable]

Yes, you heard that right...the slaughter of newborns is now on the horizon...you know, if the parent(s) feel they've made a mistake, don't like the sex of the child, decide they don't want this one...

And published in a medical journal to boot.

One has to academically justify a new horror, before it can be accepted and put into practice.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes...-newborns.html

A British medical journal is defending the publication of an article that argues it should be permissible to kill newborn babies because they don’t have the “same moral standing as actual persons.”

“After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” was published last week in the Journal of Medical Ethics. It was written by Alberto Giubilini, of the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva, of the University of Melbourne and Oxford University.

No different than the master race argument we've heard of, once upon a time, or the eugenics or reasoned choice arguments used for the last 40 years from the pro-abortion movement...just taken to the next level.

<sarcasm> I'd think a really good scientific mind could come up with a medical journal argument in favor of post-post-birth abortion. You know...if favor of killing those of any age who are determined to be inimical to the chosen societal group. I'm sure that's coming once this idea has been established and put into practice. </sarcasm>

It's happened before, and as the saying goes...those who fail to learn the lessons of history...

[LAGC]

Funny how social conservatives oppose granting wider access to birth control ("killing babies" in their prime) then wonder why some people opt to get abortions or even engage in infanticide after the baby is born, because they don't have easy access to abortion, or are otherwise forced to bear a child they don't want.

[Oswald Bastable]

Funny how social conservatives oppose granting wider access to birth control ("killing babies" in their prime) then wonder why some people opt to get abortions or even engage in infanticide after the baby is born, because they don't have easy access to abortion, or are otherwise forced to bear a child they don't want.

Funny how liberals are so glad to slaughter innocents, unknowing and unbelieving that their slaughter is just on the horizon.

And obviously I was completely correct...you are indeed proud of this.

[LAGC]

Funny how liberals are so glad to slaughter innocents, unknowing and unbelieving that their slaughter is just on the horizon.

Mmm-hmm. And women who are raped should be forced to bear their rapist's off-spring as well, I'm sure you believe?

"No abortions even in the case of incest or rape!"

Isn't that Rick Santorum's clarion call? No "morning after" pill either?

[LAGC]

What's funny is, "pro-lifers" totally missed the whole point of the paper:

Drs. Minerva and Giubilini intended the paper to be a purely academic reflection on the nature of abortion and childcare, and to examine, from an ethicist's standpoint, why certain types of abortions are permitted while others were not. It was meant to be shared among the academic community, continuing a debate within the field of medical ethics that has been present for several decades.

Instead, the "pro-abortion" article went viral, with clips from the piece distributed through pro-life web sites and blogs like The Blaze. Within a few days, Dr. Minerva and Dr. Giubilini were received hundreds of hate mail, including dozens of emails threatening Dr. Minerva's life and saying "You should die."

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3083...th-threats.htm

The point of the article wasn't to try to justify infanticide, but rather to promote discussion as to when a life becomes "viable."

Instead, in knee-jerk fashion, all the knuckle-draggers do is dish out death threats.

[NewbieAKguy]

Right, because a 30 year old law student, and self proclaimed "productive rights activist" can't already buy condoms, spermicide, or even go to Planned Parenthood; one of the left's lofty bastions of morality of course, to get birth control pills at reduced rates, in this day and age. Easy access to abortion? Boo-effing-hoo that women have to pay for something out of their own pockets.

How about not having unprotected sex in the first place to avoid needing a so-called "easy access abortion?" Oh that's right, they're too damn poor to buy rubbers themselves. Have you done the math on how many condoms a woman, or any 'man' can get for $3K a year this arrogant.....woman, claims to need? If she's telling the truth, then Rush once again is right; she IS a slut.

As for "bearing a child they don't want", please refer to above sentences about buying a damn rubber yourself, or i dunno, here's a stunner PUT THE CHILD UP FOR ADOPTION. Perhaps you lefties can make a group modeled after PETA, but for humans, to care for these "unwanted" babies.......but I guess the joke is on them that 95% of the animals in PETA's care are euthanized, right?

But I guess the lives of people are on equal footing with the lives of animals in the eyes of do-gooder libs. Such amazing examples of humanity they are.

[Oswald Bastable]

Mmm-hmm. And women who are raped should be forced to bear their rapist's off-spring as well, I'm sure you believe?

"No abortions even in the case of incest or rape!"

Isn't that Rick Santorum's clarion call? No "morning after" pill either?

Which has what to do with killing newborns?

Which has what to do with partial-birth abortion?

Which has what to do with anything that didn't involve rape, incest or anything involving 1st trimester abortions...regardless of the reason?

As an adamant shitstain, you refuse to address the subject of the post, attempting to obfuscate it in previous liberal dogma regarding the subject.

You are on the same path as the Nazis...attempting to justify the killing of anyone deemed inimical to your beliefs...and you appear to have no clue you're in Goebbels pocket.

You are a very sad little man.

[Oswald Bastable]

The point of the article wasn't to try to justify infanticide, but rather to promote discussion as to when a life becomes "viable."

Ah yes...because there is still some question whether a life is viable once the child is separated from the mother, breathing on its own, crying...

Yes...that's really a question at that point...

Just as there's a question as to whether brain damaged people who ascribe to liberal philosophies are viable and should be allowed to continue to live?

Wow...I think we've found some common ground bud...let's talk about what constitutes viability...you know...in that whole eugenic, hitlerian, best for the future of man aspect...

[LAGC]

Which has what to do with killing newborns?

Which has what to do with partial-birth abortion?

Which has what to do with anything that didn't involve rape, incest or anything involving 1st trimester abortions...regardless of the reason?

If you had done more research, you'd find that that's not what the authors were advocating at all.

I think their whole point is that fetuses DO become viable before 9 months, that once a fetus is able to survive on its own outside the womb, it should be considered a person and granted full rights.

Granted, that doesn't happen until very late in the pregnancy, but the vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester anyway, so its a moot issue.

Just more social conservative hand-wringing over a non-issue.

[Oswald Bastable]

If you had done more research, you'd find that that's not what the authors were advocating at all.

I think their whole point is that fetuses DO become viable before 9 months, that once a fetus is able to survive on its own outside the womb, it should be considered a person and granted full rights.

Granted, that doesn't happen until very late in the pregnancy, but the vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester anyway, so its a moot issue.

Just more social conservative hand-wringing over a non-issue.

You're an idiot...

No new justification for state sanctioned murder starts without an academic justification for same in the modern world. Hitler's was the master race, eugenic argument. This is the culmination of the same (Margaret Sanger) argument today. That you would attempt to justify it on "intellectual" grounds only proves you're in complete support of post-birth abortion...which ultimately leads to the state deciding that potentially "YOU" no longer have a right to life, for whatever reason...at whatever age you may be.

Personally, I look forward to the state's decision that "YOU" will be terminated post-birth as being a drain on society.

[l921428x]

If you had done more research, you'd find that that's not what the authors were advocating at all.

I think their whole point is that fetuses DO become viable before 9 months, that once a fetus is able to survive on its own outside the womb, it should be considered a person and granted full rights.

Granted, that doesn't happen until very late in the pregnancy, but the vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester anyway, so its a moot issue.

Just more social conservative hand-wringing over a non-issue.

Who decides the full rights is the whole point and who grants the rights? That IS the question.

[LAGC]

No new justification for state sanctioned murder starts without an academic justification for same in the modern world. Hitler's was the master race, eugenic argument. This is the culmination of the same (Margaret Sanger) argument today. That you would attempt to justify it on "intellectual" grounds only proves you're in complete support of post-birth abortion...which ultimately leads to the state deciding that potentially "YOU" no longer have a right to life, for whatever reason...at whatever age you may be.

Lets be real here. The only time infanticide is even an issue is when young moms WHO DON'T WANT A BABY TO BEGIN WITH end up discharging their newborn in a toilet or dumping the newborn in a garbage bin and abandoning the child.

Check out some of these stories: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&g...ndoned+newborn

And why does that happen? In almost every case, its because the mother is taught that birth control is evil, that abortion is evil, that their parents wouldn't approve, etc.

Thanks to this fear and loathing of birth control and abortion in society, unready mothers are abandoning their LIVE newborns instead!

Is that what you call "family values?"

[LAGC]

Who decides the full rights is the whole point and who grants the rights? That IS the question.

Well, ultimately the Supreme Court.

And I don't see them legalizing infanticide any time soon.

[NewbieAKguy]

And it was also the Supreme Court that ruled that black slaves are considered property, not people.

Please direct your attention to paragraph 3, line 2, sixth word in from the left.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

[LAGC]

Seriously guys, I respect your points-of-view.

Believe me, I'd much rather prefer that abortion were to be performed only extremely rarely, and infanticide to be almost unheard of as well.

Which is why I'm so in favor of providing free and easy access to birth control to young people, even if it isn't 100% effective.

But it's silly to tell young people to ignore their natural urges and abstain from sex altogether. We are sexual creatures, first and foremost, its the very core of our existence. Human population would have never grown and blossomed if it wasn't for our innate sex drive. It's silly to try to ignore it or suppress it. It goes against everything nature has imbued upon us.

Until scientists figure out a way to completely kill the urge (assuming we'd even want such a "cure") I don't see any way around it.

[mriddick]

If it's that true killing babies is the same as abortion, then wouldn't the converse be true also, that is abortion is the same with killing babies?

Really the question is at what point does a person take on legal rights, right now we use which side of a woman's vagina the baby is on as the determining factor. The problem is that as we become more advanced for many that line gets pushed back as viability age drops. IMO things like this are to stake out a philosophical position to keep that point at or after the child exits the vagina and little more.

[N/A]

I think they need to determine at what point in gestation that the developing fetus can no longer develope into anything but a human. When they are just a mass of cells that could become a raccoon, a Bengal Tiger, a rose bush or a human, then we can concider that they are just tissue and not human. When they reach a point where they "click on" certain genes that say "these will become human cells", then we can concider there is a human in the womb. When do you reckon that happens, little marxist?

[LAGC]

I think they need to determine at what point in gestation that the developing fetus can no longer develope into anything but a human. When they are just a mass of cells that could become a raccoon, a Bengal Tiger, a rose bush or a human, then we can concider that they are just tissue and not human. When they reach a point where they "click on" certain genes that say "these will become human cells", then we can concider there is a human in the womb. When do you reckon that happens, little marxist?

Well, that would be better at least than saying that an embryo becomes sacrosanct immediately after conception, making "morning after" pills immoral, not to mention the fact that most fertilized eggs end up being naturally expelled by the female body regardless, making most all women "serial killers" if you buy the pro-life argument at its extreme.

Ideally, an abortion should be performed before the fetus has developed a nervous system. But in the vast majority of cases they already are. About the only time you have a late-term or so-called "partial birth" abortion is in the case of extreme health risk to the mother. And if it ever becomes a choice between the mother's life and the fetus's life, the mother's life is more important always.

[sevlex]

[5.56NATO]

You know the world is messed up when there are people who want to vivisect innocent babies still in the womb or now even newborns but want murderers to not suffer the death penalty since the death penalty is too harsh or someone innocent may be unjustly executed.