http://weaselzippers.us/2012/02/28/...for-after-birth-abortions-in-medical-journal/ Australian ethicists say that if....oh shoot. You're gonna just have to read this villainy. Cause callin' it Infanticide just sounds too awful. I do believe President ObortionSupporter would approve of this line of thinking. He himself supported infanticide while voting present in congress in his short and inglorious congressional career.
So you found something TWO AUSTRALIANS said and you're applying it to Obama? That sounds kind of desperate.
not really...his 'Science Czar' Holdren said that babies are not 'human beings' until after they have been given proper socialization and nourishment for the first years of their life. http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/07/...ies-arent-human-until-theyve-been-socialized/
and more left wingers that advocate killing of babies: http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singer-s-bold-defense-of-infanticide
Great, so two Aussie's said something we all disagree with, and someone is going to try and twist it to make out that every pro choicer would support his.
I can absolutely follow their logic. In fact, "the money shot" from the article is exactly what most of the abortionists here use as an argument that killing the babies is just simply swell. I ask those who support killing of the babies if they are delighted that their mommy did not kill them. I also ask that if abortion is so great, why not try it on themselves and let us know how it goes here's the money shot from the article 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.
according to Obama's science czar, Holdren, it should be legal to kill them up to two years old.. so not only newborns but toddlers... of course he also supports forced abortions and sterilization...
Sadly this is the next logical extension to the present laws. Romans used to leave their unwanted babies in the middle a field and just walk off.
let's not lose sight of the article it's about following the logic of those who love to kill babies I can see how this make logical sense because it uses the same thought process for killing babies while in the womb
and Holdren's view is exactly in line with that thought...that an infant/toddler is not a person, is not a human being because they have no 'interest' in maintaining their own life, no awareness of themselves as human and it is not morally wrong to end that life.
No because if that were the case we could move the bar and legally terminate a 51 year old. I think some people are sick.
Well, except that Holdren is not a "czar," he was confirmed by the Senate. Forced abortions and sterilization were topics mentioned in a 30 year old book about the event of a population crisis, not an endorsement of them. I imagine the infanticide quote was distorted by conservatives in the same way as everything else he has said or didn't say.
So, Holdren WASN'T confirmed by the Senate? Glenn Beck's claims get a "pants on fire" rating from Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/
There is a group of pro-choice extremists that advocate allowing unrestricted abortion until birth. But if we allow abortion until birth, why not after birth? Its not like something fundamental changes with the baby itself during birth. Studies like this are just a logical conclusion of such twisted ideology. And it is because of this dangerous, logically consistent and indeed, correct conclusion why I always stress that altough I am pro-choice, it applies only to the first trimester.
Well, yes it does. After birth it's a person, so killing it would be murder. That's why it's not allowed and why it would be wrong to allow it. Not at all. Then you are being ridiculous.
Read again what I wrote: Its not like something fundamental changes with the baby itself during birth. You have to base the right to personhood on some objective internal quality of the person itself. There is nothing, no objective internal quality which fundamentally changes during the few minutes of birth in the baby, so that 9 month old baby in the womb does not have it, but fresh newborn suddenly does. And external quality (location, dependence on something external) does not cut it for me. I do not see any reason why should our fundamental rights be dependant on such petty and irrelevant external qualities. I dont value people because they are located somewhere, but not elsewhere, or because they have only some level of biological dependence on external world and/or others. Nor do these bioethicists.
Again, this has all been debunked by Politifact as conservative distortion: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/
There are some radical changes that occur at birth. http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/7_R_Eile/BirthChange.htm Birth involves far more immediate, dramatic physiological change in the fetus than merely where the nutrients and oxygen come from. These profound changes are a reason that I consider birth to be an 'initiation' to air-breathing 'personhood.' Do you have any idea of the massive changes necessary to accomplish receiving oxygen from the atmosphere? Let me just address circulation a bit, and leave the even more profound respiratory and digestive changes for another time... I think you'll regard birth as even more miraculous when you understand what an amazing physiological event it is, and what awesome changes happen at that moment! At birth, two major events happen that radically alter fetal hemodynamics; ligation of the umbilical cord causes a huge, though transient rise in arterial pressure, and a rise in plasma C02 and fall in blood P02 help to initiate regular breathing.....
Dear god, a pro-lifer using the term "infanticide" in its proper context. Pinch me, I must be dreaming. Where in the article does it mention Obama? Fallacy much?
No need to school me about the changes during birth, as I have taken embryology already. If this change in circulation and respiration is what gives right to life to a newborn as opposed to a foetus (it is not), then make no mistake, the conclusion of this study is correct. Lets kill babies! Because as basis for right to life, it is laughable. But let me rephrase: There is nothing fundamental that changes during birth that could even remotely be used to argue as a basis for right to life. Unless you want to justify killing newborns.
