Welcome to the slippery slope. It all started when they changed the Hyppocratic oath to the Hypocritic oath.
Printable View
Welcome to the slippery slope. It all started when they changed the Hyppocratic oath to the Hypocritic oath.
Just posting a link to a relevent thread on the Jaffe Memo.
Seriously, Did anyone actually download the pdf and read it? It is 1000000% times worse that the headline.
PDF here: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201....full.pdf+html
From page 2
You see, just because you are a human (Read: A child of the Creator) does not mean you have a divine Right to life. Only the Communist STATE can declare whether you have any Rights or not. Just more justification of exterminating human life, under the guise of already public acceptance of such atrocities.Quote:
"Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal".
On page 3
You see you are not an 'actual person' until you have grown up and decided to serve the Communist STATE. Only then can you suffer any type of harm, according to these MARXIST Eugenicist.Quote:
"It makes no sense to say that someone is harmed by being prevented from becoming an actual person. The reason is
that, by virtue of our definition of the concept of ‘harm’ in the
previous section, in order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that
someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm.
If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not
become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither
an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which mean
that there is no harm at all. So, if you ask one of us if we would
have been harmed, had our parents decided to kill us when we
were fetuses or newborns, our answer is ‘no’, because the
would have harmed someone who does not exist (the ‘us’ who
you are asking the question), which means no one. And if no one
is harmed, then no harm occurred.
"
And if they decide to kill you before you are old enough to be programmed, then no harm has occurred.
:mad:
Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability.[note 1] An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
To hell with there wording...................there is only way to desribe what they are talking about and that is .........after- birth MURDER
If someone, who is idiotic enough, wants to remove their offspring from the genetic pool no matter the dependants age, I am all in favor of that.
Yeah I know sometimes the apple falls far from the tree but usually not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korbin Dallas
No-no... Casey claims Caylee was born from date rape... so after birth abortion was OK...
Pretty much anytime a child is unable to survive without the care of an adult, abortion should be an option... A kid only qualifies for human rights when s/he is able to scavenge and survive without aid, somewhere between 4-6 years old...
It seems that "after birth abortion" is merely a question of access. Be careful what you wish for. Soon the state will claim the right to declare anyone they wish to be a "non person," which means that, since no "person" will be "harmed," killing them isn't homicide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ximmy
At which point they should be ripe for child prostitution rings...
We are NEXT........
fucking monsters.