Medical Ethicists Arguing to Kill Healthy Babies

[Carmelbythecorn]

Sometimes I wonder what kind of world I live in. These evil "ethicists" are espousing the moral acceptability to kill children that have been born!

Prison Planet.com » Ethicists Argue Killing Newborn Babies Should Be Allowed

We live in a dramatically different world than that which we were raised...

 

[Double T]

Yeah, australia. Not the USA. That's what happens when a bunch of felons get shipped off to live on an Island...you get messed up thought processes.

If you read the source, their thinking is logical...it's just that they are trying to define life by "moral understanding" which they are lacking.

Pretty sure they aren't well known, and being "published" there isn't anything of importance.

The fact of the matter is still the same, what defines life? Breathing? Heart beat? Brain wave activity? Morals?

It's all skewed. What is used to define death when a doctor calls it should also be used to verify life and the abortion should not be allowed if those signs are present.

Brain wave activity is a key indicator, and people can be "brain dead" yet their body can be "alive" to those looking at them (palpable heart beat, respirations, urinary output if on IV/G-Tube, bowel movements, etc)

Until we can "define" life, like we do when calling or verifying time of death, then this whole argument is moot and pointless.

/end rant...again

 

[CarmelHP]

I thought we were promised by pro-abotionists that abortion legalization was NOT the slippery slope to infanticide.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

I thought we were promised by pro-abotionists that abortion legalization was NOT the slippery slope to infanticide.

We were also promised the income tax would never go over one percent.

 

[rambone]

The author's email is listed with his paper...

francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Yeah, australia. Not the USA. That's what happens when a bunch of felons get shipped off to live on an Island...you get messed up thought processes.

If you read the source, their thinking is logical...it's just that they are trying to define life by "moral understanding" which they are lacking.

Pretty sure they aren't well known, and being "published" there isn't anything of importance.

The fact of the matter is still the same, what defines life? Breathing? Heart beat? Brain wave activity? Morals?

It's all skewed. What is used to define death when a doctor calls it should also be used to verify life and the abortion should not be allowed if those signs are present.

Brain wave activity is a key indicator, and people can be "brain dead" yet their body can be "alive" to those looking at them (palpable heart beat, respirations, urinary output if on IV/G-Tube, bowel movements, etc)

Until we can "define" life, like we do when calling or verifying time of death, then this whole argument is moot and pointless.

/end rant...again

“The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand,” - Matthew Archbold of the National Catholic Register

Rational people dismiss these articles as the rants of the intelligentsia (at best) or idiots (at worse), but others use these arguments as cover in their own sick, twisted methods to remake society into anything other than the traditional Judeo-Christian model it has been for the past 200+ years.

 

[abnk]

Surely, I hope they are being sarcastic trying to make a point.

 

[remman]

Is anybody else actually surprised at this? Like the Matthew Archibold quote above, it's just drawing lines in the sand. I'm 100% against abortion from the moment of conception. Once a child is conceived, it becomes a living human. That's my view, take it as you will. These people are just trying to justify murder. And even though this is from Australia, don't think it won't ever happen in the US.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

I thought we were promised by pro-abotionists that abortion legalization was NOT the slippery slope to infanticide.

I think when they "promised" it was in purple...OR...they had their fingers crossed...

 

[ATOMonkey]

Up next, old people.

We already deny them medical care if they're too old (not in the states anyway...yet), it's only a matter of time before people start to advocate euthanizing the elderly since they use up too many resources without contributing any.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Up next, old people.

We already deny them medical care if they're too old (not in the states anyway...yet), it's only a matter of time before people start to advocate euthanizing the elderly since they use up too many resources without contributing any.

Clearly there are too many people on the planet to be able to sustain them in an environmentally sound manner...

Can't you just see them now with the "you've lived a good life" bullcrap?

 

[CarmelHP]

Clearly there are too many people on the planet to be able to sustain them in an environmentally sound manner...

Can't you just see them now with the "you've lived a good life" bullcrap?

And everyone thought Soylent Green was just fiction. It's a good societal breakdown dystopia movie if anyone hasn't seen it.

 

[dross]

At least they make a logically consistent argument.

 

[Double T]

If a person wants to end their own life who are we to stop them?

 

[CarmelHP]

If a person wants to end their own life who are we to stop them?

What's that got to do with murdering babies or denying healthcare to the elderly?

 

[hoosierdoc]

I'm glad my position on abortion has me further away from this crowd than the width of a cervix.

 

[Double T]

Up next, old people.

We already deny them medical care if they're too old (not in the states anyway...yet), it's only a matter of time before people start to advocate euthanizing the elderly since they use up too many resources without contributing any.

My euthanizing comment was in re: to this.

And btw, of course the catholic church is against abortion...they don't like anything that stops fertilization to occur and considers birth control/condoms etc a smaller form of abortion

 

[ATOMonkey]

My euthanizing comment was in re: to this.

And btw, of course the catholic church is against abortion...they don't like anything that stops fertilization to occur and considers birth control/condoms etc a smaller form of abortion

Actually, the whole "birth control" thing comes from an Old Testament story where a guy married his brother's widow (as was law) and had sex with her (as was law), but then "spilled his seed on the ground." When God caught wind of that he struck the guy dead on the spot.

That's where we get "all sperm is sacred" "birth control is a sin" mumbo jumbo.

IMO, that story is more about honoring God and Family than it is about birth control.

 

[dom1104]

Actually, the whole "birth control" thing comes from an Old Testament story where a guy married his brother's widow (as was law) and had sex with her (as was law), but then "spilled his seed on the ground." When God caught wind of that he struck the guy dead on the spot.

That's where we get "all sperm is sacred" "birth control is a sin" mumbo jumbo.

IMO, that story is more about honoring God and Family than it is about birth control.

You are 100% right about thats the point of that story.

Birth control has more to do with "Why WOULNDT you want another precious child in your life" rather than "God says you have to have them".

Kids are a blessing, and I couldnt imagine my life without them.

Cant wait for the younger ones to get to the point I can take em shootin.

Life is good.

 

[steveh_131]

At least they make a logically consistent argument.

I was thinking this, too.

If you're ok with killing babies, I don't see any reason why that should change once they exit the uterus.