Infanticide is now "moral"??

[cherylu]

"If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn."

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

And these are healthy, in all ways normal babies they are talking about. But they are not yet "persons" according to these folks and so we should be able to kill them even after birth for no other reasons then they will be a supposed burden to the parents. How far down the slippery slope have we really gone? This is horrible. And this discussion is in a medical ETHICS journal.

You can bet that if newborns are declared to not be persons with no inherent right to life, other groups are certainly not far behind.

[jasoncran]

"If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn."

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

And these are healthy, in all ways normal babies they are talking about. But they are not yet "persons" according to these folks and so we should be able to kill them even after birth for no other reasons then they will be a supposed burden to the parents. How far down the slippery slope have we really gone? This is horrible. And this discussion is in a medical ETHICS journal.

You can bet that if newborns are declared to not be persons with no inherent right to life, other groups are certainly not far behind.

yup and the pro-choicers get mad when we say that abortion is a holocaust. its no different in that one group must declare another group not a human.

[AnotherSinner]

"If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn."

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

And these are healthy, in all ways normal babies they are talking about. But they are not yet "persons" according to these folks and so we should be able to kill them even after birth for no other reasons then they will be a supposed burden to the parents. How far down the slippery slope have we really gone? This is horrible. And this discussion is in a medical ETHICS journal.

You can bet that if newborns are declared to not be persons with no inherent right to life, other groups are certainly not far behind.

It is sad that now there are standards to determine if a child is a child or not. Not to mention if one is deserving of life or not. I have a younger sibling who is mentally challenged. Her faith and love for God though...it astounds me. It utterly leaves me in awe...making me wonder if it is really us who are spiritually impaired.

No offense is meant, so I apologize if any is taken.

May God Bless You

Dani

[jasoncran]

"If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn."

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

And these are healthy, in all ways normal babies they are talking about. But they are not yet "persons" according to these folks and so we should be able to kill them even after birth for no other reasons then they will be a supposed burden to the parents. How far down the slippery slope have we really gone? This is horrible. And this discussion is in a medical ETHICS journal.

You can bet that if newborns are declared to not be persons with no inherent right to life, other groups are certainly not far behind.

It is sad that now there are standards to determine if a child is a child or not. Not to mention if one is deserving of life or not. I have a younger sibling who is mentally challenged. Her faith and love for God though...it astounds me. It utterly leaves me in awe...making me wonder if it is really us who are spiritually impaired.

No offense is meant, so I apologize if any is taken.

May God Bless You

Dani

none taken, my aunt, youngest sister would be in this category.

[MorningGlory]

These people are paving their road to hell with words.......

[Bold Believer]

I might deign to comment on this...after I clean up the vomit.

[winsomebulldog]

First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

Hubby and I were just talking the other day about the absurdity of the fact that in this country (America) it is not only legal but increasingly accepted for a woman to have her unborn child killed via abortion, yet anyone who murders a pregnant woman can be charged with TWO counts of murder, at least in some jurisdictions. Not sure about nation-wide. The point being, of course, that it is a blatant double standard that no one seems to want to acknowledge. Now, if this notion of infanticide being no different or worse than abortion picks up, how are they going to distinguish between parents who decide their newborns are just too much of a burden and child abusers who take the beatings or shaking too far?

How long before all those women out there demanding that the baby inside them is not a human being pick up on this and start insisting that they ought to be able to carry that "non-human" to term and give birth before they are forced to decide if they want to let it live or not? Imagine the scenario: "Gosh, that's an ugly baby. Why don't we just kill this one off and try again? I'm too pretty to have a baby that ugly."

It WILL happen.

[Guest]

These people are paving their road to hell with words.......

Talk

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. Matthew 15:18

The Walk

But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Proverbs 8:36

And Yet There Is Hope

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

[cherylu]

"Hubby and I were just talking the other day about the absurdity of the fact that in this country (America) it is not only legal but increasingly accepted for a woman to have her unborn child killed via abortion, yet anyone who murders a pregnant woman can be charged with TWO counts of murder, at least in some jurisdictions. Not sure about nation-wide. The point being, of course, that it is a blatant double standard that no one seems to want to acknowledge. Now, if this notion of infanticide being no different or worse than abortion picks up, how are they going to distinguish between parents who decide their newborns are just too much of a burden and child abusers who take the beatings or shaking too far? "

I was thinking earlier about how the whole definition of murder is going to have to be changed if a standard like this were to be adopted. There are going to have to be a whole lot of new caveats added to the laws to define when killing a human being is killing a "person" and is murder and when killing a human being that is not a "person" is not murder. Slippery slope, we are sliding further down by the minute.

Edited March 17, 2012 by cherylu

[Cajunluvie]

I saw this on another board that was posted by a retired nurse/hospital administrator. An excellent lady. She is horrified with the speed we're going downwinds.

I've been saying this for a while now. I chose NOT to abort my daughter. I found out later that people were saying I should have and they had the nerve to "oooh and ahhh" over her when she was visiting her father. Yeah, I REMEMBER what they said behind my back. I believe God blessed me for my choice of not choosing to murder my child.

Check out this lady's blog... she sees no woman needs ever to be apolegtic for having an abortion for ANY reason. Hypothetically, I can kill my kid if I don't want her to have an unwanted gene or psychological condition or social condition and not be sorry for it. Kill one argument with another argument.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/03/14/choice-words-about-abortion-0

I post this just to show how some take it so far to justify anything. I'm currently taking Women's Studies in my senior year. It is quite eye-opening. I did comment on some issues that rubbed wrong with few gals.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Cajunluvie