After-Birth Abortion - Journal of Medical Ethics

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201...00411.abstract

Quote:

---

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue 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.

---

This is coming from the Journal for Medical Ethics. Can you believe this? Actually arguing for the killing of a new born baby. SICK.

Must be money involved. Money and ethics are like oil and water.

A followup paper should discuss the ethics and merits of performing retroactive after-birth abortion....on the authors.

The number of abortions exceeds of the number of deaths during childhood by 6-fold. This is de facto evidence that abortion is being used primarily as a means of population control. This will come as no surprise to thinking individuals.

The power elite have done their job well.

dang. that's just morally reprehensible, imo.

i can't understand when adoption isn't an option? there are so many people/couples out there that so badly want to adopt. the government makes it very hard to do this.

no comprende....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mamboni

retroactive after-birth abortion....on the authors.

---

This.

What's the difference?

1 month after conception. Living in uterus.

8 months after conception. Living in uterus.

10 months after conception. Living in playpen.

4 years after conception. Living in parents house.

50 years after conception. Living in own house.

80 years after conception. Living in nursing home.

Two out of these six are currently fair game. There seems to be a push to make killing two more acceptable. How long until it's OK to kill all six?

So, using the logic of the authors, if Casey Anthony would have killed Caylee immediately after birth instead of waiting two years, we would have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs, and no one would even know who she is.

Ever heard of pater familias?

It's certainly not a new concept to hold the power of life or death over one's offspring into adulthood.

After-birth abortion

http://pubrecord.org/wordpress/wp-co...offins_DoD.jpg

It's typical. The Death Cult's Abortion industry is working toward turning abortion into a religion itself. I am currently reading "Demonic Abortion" by Father Euteneuer, and he provides proofs of this. His book (As well as his book on Exorcism) led to him being disrobed of his "Catholic Priest" status and a smear campaign.
This is because he does not mince words, and calls out the 2nd vatican council for weakening the Rite of Exorcism unnecessarily, and accuses 2ndVC of attempting to "glamorize the Ritual" (paraphrase) in his Exorcism book, which was forced to be taken out of print after only 4 months of being on the market.

In Demonic Abortion, he has an appendix in which the zealous lobbyists for murder actually use religious terms in their speeches to promote abortion. The Medical industry, Abortion industry, Feminism industry and many others are all in cahoots, trying to create a culture that considers conception an unwholesome burden.

One of my missions in life now is to make an electronic file of both books to get them out on the web.





Some quotes of these disguised satanists:

Mary E Hunt, disguised as a Catholic Christian, in a newsletter for "Catholics for a free choice", called "Conscience" of all things...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mary E Hunt

Women's right to choose is what I, as a Catholic, dare to call sacramental. .....Reproductive choice is a sacred trust and women are more than equal to the task. Bringing this to public expression, "Praising our choices" as poet Marge Piercy has said, is something that a just society will celebrate as sacramental

---

Tess Kolney, member of "Giain activist Church of all worlds", in "Green egg magazine"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tess

The issues that control freaks bring up - Is the fetus alive? - Is it morally right to kill? etc. - are non-issues. I don't think there's even a question for most of us that life is life, fully divine. The issue is: our religious creed is "Thou art Goddess". Do we mean it or not? Is it true or not?...Are we willing to deny anyone else the right to interfere in our choices as Mother/Goddess about how we handle our sexuality and our fertility and our motherhood because we assume 100% responsibility for all of our actions and their consequences? Are we Goddess, or do we try in vain to abdicate the responsibility?

---

That quote I find funny in a sad way. Indeed, she has asserted that she, as a "goddess", assumes all responsibility and consequence for her actions. I don't think she understands what she is committing herself to, when she stands before judgement.



Patricia Baird-Windle, former owner of 3 abortuaries:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baird

Abortion is a major blessing, and a sacrament in the hands of women..... At the very crucible of the sacrament of abortion work is that some women have an abortion out of love for the baby, (See her admit that she is aborting BABIES, not just a blob of cells - Awoke) out of love for the children they already have and are having a hard time feeding.

---

Anne Nicole Gaylor, founder of "Freedom from religion foundation", FFRF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anne

Birth control and abortion are our greatest steps forward in social and moral progress since we freed the slaves. A womans right to control her own reproductive life is a blessing, a blessing for her and a blessing for society. There is no reason to be bashful or apologetic about supporting women's freedom to choose abortion; there is every reason to be ashamed of supporting a religion that opposes that freedom.

---

Women certainly DO have the right to control their own reproductive life. Try not copulating. That works.



Nina Churchman (Sounds like a 5th column crypto name to me - Awoke), Episcopalian "priest".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nina

God, unlike what the Liturgy states, also rejoices that women facing unplanned pregnancies have the freedom to carefully choose the best option - birth, adoption or abortion - for themselves and for their families.

---

Whoa! Unlike what the liturgy states? Another one who doesn't know what she's getting herself into. She is a supposed "priest" who is to lead people towards God.


Anyways, there must be a hundred quotes like that, and I never even cherry-picked the best ones. Those were just the fisrt few I turned to.

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

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".

---

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.

On page 3

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.
"

---

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.

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

So, using the logic of the authors, if Casey Anthony would have killed Caylee immediately after birth instead of waiting two years, we would have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs, and no one would even know who she is.

---

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

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...

---

At which point they should be ripe for child prostitution rings...

We are NEXT........

fucking monsters.

Quote:

---

Abortion paper led to death threats.
TWO Melbourne academics have received death threats after writing a theoretical paper that argues killing a newborn baby should be allowed in cases where an abortion would have been granted.

The controversial paper, written by Alberto Giubilini, of the University of Milan and Monash University, and Francesca Minerva, of the University of Melbourne and Oxford University, was electronically pre-published in the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics last week and titled ''After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?''

The philosophers suggest that newborns and foetuses are morally equivalent ''potential persons'' whose family's interests override theirs.

Avoiding the term ''infanticide'', the pair say ''after-birth abortion'' should be permitted when disabilities, such as Down syndrome, are not detected during pregnancy, or if economic or psychological circumstances change and ''taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone''.

Dr Minerva said she had notified police about the death threats and feared for her safety.

''This was a theoretical and academic article,'' she said.

''I didn't mean to change any laws. I'm not in favour of infanticide. I'm just using logical arguments.''

The paper had been taken out of context, she said. It was intended for an academic community.

''This debate is not new. The debate has been going on for 30 years,'' she said. ''I don't think people outside bioethics should learn anything from this paper. I've received hundreds of emails saying, 'You should die'.''

The British Medical Journal Group, which publishes the Journal of Medical Ethics, has defended publication of the article. Journal editor Julian Savulescu said fanatics were threatening academic discussion and freedom of speech.

---

Full story @ the Age

Hiding their murderous desires behind academic discourse. Typical socialists.

Really, the two "academics" should be happy. The people who threatened to kill them were just trying to offer him the same chance that the academics were offering the new born babies: To be murdered after exiting the womb. They never specified a min or max legth of time, so I would assume they mean that they can just murder anyone who was born at some point, right?

As someone who is pro-choice (I think the baby should have a choice), I feel like this "unmasks" abortion for what it truly is.

It almost seems like they're being sarcastic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirgonzo420

As someone who is pro-choice (I think the baby should have a choice), I feel like this "unmasks" abortion for what it truly is.

It almost seems like they're being sarcastic...

---

Quote:

---

Although it is reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is against the best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down's syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’.3 But, in fact, people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.5

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

---

Doesn't sound like they're being sarcastic to me.

And the parts in red are to be read in the context that they are talking about the comfort/well-being/convenience of the parents, not the baby. What they are saying if you go read the entire section, is that an acceptable reason for post-birth infanticide is merely the fact that the mother or father might be stressed out about having a child with downs or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awoke

Doesn't sound like they're being sarcastic to me.

And the parts in red are to be read in the context that they are talking about the comfort/well-being/convenience of the parents, not the baby. What they are saying if you go read the entire section, is that an acceptable reason for post-birth infanticide is merely the fact that the mother or father might be stressed out about having a child with downs or whatever.

---

Oh I'm sure they're being serious, but all they are doing is projecting the "logic" of abortion closer to it's ultimate end.

Abortion is just a euphemism for murder. This article practically screams this fact.

It would wake up some fence sitters if this got wide coverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnQPublic

Welcome to the slippery slope. It all started when they changed the Hyppocratic oath to the Hypocritic oath.

---

Under Obamacare in the new Idiocracy, doctors will be taking the hippopotamus oath.

"We promise to like chikin mignuggits. We will tell fat peeps they is fat."

this is just one of their ways to population control . what are we doing in ever country around the world