Satisfactory progress being made in the liberal agenda

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
It is very well established that the left promotes its agenda a little bit at a time. If they can get people used to just a little help from government, then that sets the stage for "a little more" later. And even later, just a little more.

But "help from government" isn't the only thing the leftists are interested in promoting.

We all know how inconvenient it is to have children. They get in the wsay so much, and often force us into major lifestyle changes we don't want. Oh, bother. Well, thanks to the efforts of the leftists, we are now pretty much used to the idea that it's OK to get rid of the unborn baby in the womb. And we no longer have to think about unpleasant phrases like "kill them".

Well, now it's a little later. And some of them apparently think it's time to introduce the next small step.

--------------------------------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent
1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012

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 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.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They 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”.
 
Werbung:
Their reasoning is not really that far off -- killing your baby is murder -- and abortion is murder. They are indeed the same thing.
 
Werbung:
Isn't this what Cass Sustein promoted? Or do I have him confused with a different Czar. One of them anyway, said that parents should be able to kill their children up to the age of 5. Where did these people come from?
Just contemplating this isn't human. Are they the leftover experiments of Hitler's Children?
 
Back
Top