Writers Defend Infanticide, So-Called “After-Birth Abortions”

lifenews.com/2013/05/06/writers-defend-infanticide-so-called-after-birth-abortions/

The infamous Journal of Medical Ethics is back with a new issue devoted to its last one, the one containing the argument for “after-birth abortion.” This one includes commentary from many prominent ethicists.

In a way, this is good. I think the defense of infanticide is repugnant but I am glad that scholars are actually saying that these are the consequences of their views. (I’m old enough to remember being called names for suggesting that ANYone, EVER would want, much less perform, a sex-selective abortion. Now they are an everyday matter that inspire no more than a shrug and an "o, well…’)

And that is why I believe that ageism should have the same legal status as racism.

I’ve always felt that the distincton between murdering a baby that could live outside the womb and murdering a baby that currently is living outside the womb was not a very large one. Certainly it is not a large enough diffrence that one should be something enshrined in “human rights” treaties and the other should be treated with horror.

(Just so there’s no confusion about what I’m trying to say, IMO they should both be treated with horror.)

That’s what happens when people think they get to decide who “people” are.

One of the reasons we would need to keep fighting abortion, even if there were no chance of our being successful, is that if we ever gave up, the next battle would be infanticide. On what grounds would a person in favor of partial birth abortions and refusing medical treatment to children from “failed abortions” argue against infanticide?

–Jen

For many years the goal of atheists, liberals and pro-aborts was to be able to murder a baby up to 3 days old: " The American Nobel-Prize-winning molecular biologist atheist James D. Watson contended that the legal definition of “person” should not apply to infants younger than three days old. “This would allow adequate time for someone to decide if a baby should be permitted to live” (17). There is another Nobel Prize-winner who advocated the murdering of live born infants, our current US President Obama, as demonstrated when he aggressively fought against the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” (BAIPA) on the Illinois Senate floor (18). The BAIPA barred abortionists from killing late term babies (typically 7 - 9 months) that survived the abortion procedure. Abortionists were routinely putting these viable infants in buckets or boxes and, leaving them to die, sometimes in closets as not to hear the crying. Several nurses including Jill Stanek testified that some lived crying at the top of their little lungs for hours. Modernized abortion clinics utilized refrigerated cold boxes for this purpose, which killed the babies through thermal exposure".

ArguingWithAtheists.com/Pages/Atheist_Perspectives.htm

Currently, it is legal to kill a baby in the womb but if the baby is delivered and that baby inches outside the womb is killed the abortionist can be charged with murder, like Kermit Gosnell. A change in location has changed the killing from legal to illegal even though it is the same human baby being killed. How can people in support of legal abortion make a distinction between what should be legal and what should not be when there is all these false arbitrators of distinction based on the location of the baby, in the womb, our outside the womb? If you support legal abortion but not infanticide you need to ask yourself why is it wrong to kill the baby outside the womb but it is acceptable to kill the baby inside the womb?

Planned Parenthood lobbyist, Alisa Labolt Snow in testimony to the Florida House said when asked what should be done with a baby born alive after a botched abortion, ‘That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.’

How can they live with this? don’t understand how people can live with themselves after killing babies? How can they look at their own babies and not see the slaughtered ones?
Brings to mind the film,
“The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas” Here the Commandant of the concentration camp came to learn the ultimate lesson, that these murdered Jewish children whose gassing he oversaw were no different than his own…in fact…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_in_the_Striped_Pyjamas_%28film%29
The movie provides an unforgettable lesson. And yet, it is still happening amongst us.

And why did Catholics vote for a vehemently pro-abortion administration… Twice?

That is the question.

Catholic-Voter.com

So unnatural and disgusting. People have so much potential but with our current culture, we seem so confused… Its an anything goes mentality here.:o. We’ve lost ourselves.

Because our “Host Culture” is based only on what’s best for all walks of life no matter how sinful or unnatural they are. It’s “Melting Pot Theology” that rules the West.

That is why I can never and will never vote Democrat. In my heart I just can not vote for that party what so ever! :mad:

God bless and much peace!

Mike :slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.