Saturday, March 03, 2012

Legalize Infanticide? Another Reason To End Abortion

I guess these 'ethicists' don't understand how bad abortion is to know that infanticide is unacceptable and unethical.  Legal does not mean moral, remember everything Hitler and the Nazi's did was legal too. The mindset of many prochoice advocates is the same as the argument used by these ethicists. They think because a fetus isn't sentient, or an actual person it is morally acceptable to kill them.

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.
These are the same reasons that many abortion advocates say thA group of ethicists has argued that killing young babies is no different from abortion.ey should have the legal right to abort a human being before birth. Now you have these 'experts' claiming newborns can be killed because of the same reasons. How soon before it becomes any disabled, elderly person or person who becomes permanently brain damaged or in a vegetative state? Or when will they move the age up to determine who is and isn't a full human person? The article goes on to say:
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 editor of the Journal, Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are the authors of the article. The editor defended publishing the article by saying:
those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.
Where the editor gets the idea that infanticide,after-birth abortions, are widely accepted is beyond me. However, if that is true I guess it wouldn't surprise me since we live in a culture of death that allows the killing of innocent human beings before they are born. Abortion is morally wrong at any stage. Killing an innocent human being after birth is always wrong and even more gruesome.  Neither should be considered morally acceptable. 
Once you start giving rights to end innocent human lives you are no better than a barbaric society and eventually will allow the killing of the disabled,mentally ill and elderly.  This would be similar to what the Nazi's wanted in order to create a pure race or the eugenics and population control beliefs of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.
The authors 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’.
“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.
The authors therefore concluded 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”.
They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.
This mentality also leads countries to ration health care for the sick, disabled, elderly and premature or 'unwanted' because it is not cost effective to keep them alive and they are deemed a burden on society. This is the direction we are heading if we don't have Obama's health care law overturned by the Supreme Court or the Congress. Katherine Sebilius, the Director of Human Health Services, recently admitted in a Congressional hearing that she believes in the controversial contraception mandate, which requires employers,including religious institutions to offer free contraception to employees. She said she believes it would be cost effective to reduce the number of babies born, thus making contraception available to all through the government's new health care plan, the Affordable Care Act.

Apparently Sebilius, along with the Obama administration believes reducing the number of babies born will help to fund contraception for all. However, what they fell to acknowledge is that the more we attempt to control the population and reduce births,such as in China and India, the less productive citizens we will have in society to sustain a strong economy.  While children may be dependent on their parents for 18yrs, they eventually grow up to become productive citizens and taxpayers who help keep the economy growing&contributing to the welfare system and social security, which so many liberals cherish. Rather than killing off babies and rationing health care we need to find more ways to make charities thrive to help the needy and give people a chance to afford large families with greater tax reductions and incentives for having children.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

blog comments powered by Disqus  


Newer Post Older Post Home