I say we should have after-birth abortions, all the way up to the age of 100 years.
But we should limit it to Australian ethicists. (Throw in Peter Singer, too, for good measure.)
I can see it going that way - up to 100 yrs old. Justify your existence - fed criteria - every so many years. If you can't satisfy what the criteria is - goodbye.
It is getting so hard for me to see anything God like in people. Maybe that is why He commands me to do so no matter how rotten so and such is.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It doesn't, and the fact that I have to explain something this simple over and over again is the same reason you and other OBOBers will never convince the pro-choice crowd: you think they are stupid and hypocritical and immoral and if that's the way you start a discussion, you are going to lose.
Pro-choice means that you think people are in charge of their own bodies, and that includes the things growing in them. Pro-choice sees abortion as a means to an end, not as a good thing on its own. Pro-abortion suggests that you are in favour of abortions as a means per se and that you would encourage anyone to have them, regardless of their reasons.
Anyone who fails to see and accept this will never win over any pro-choicer.
Kinda like Pro-Choice people always accuse pro-life people of hating women or trying to control people?
__________________ "Many Christians suppose that it makes no difference which church group a Christian joins, and they act accordingly. When they come to a place where any kind of Protestant church is found, they join it as members. There are people who were successively Reformed, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, depending upon the place where they lived. And we should not be surprised when this happens among the sects, for they are not certain about their distinctive doctrines, because they are not grounded in God's Word." - Franz Pieper
Kinda like Pro-Choice people always accuse pro-life people of hating women or trying to control people?
Kinda like pro-choice using the term anti-choice.
__________________ Religion. It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Pendant que la marée monte
Et que chacun refait ses comptes
J'emmène au creux de mon ombre
Des poussières de toi
Le vent les portera
Tout disparaîtra mais
Le vent nous portera
The whole pro-choice thing... it seems to be something connected back to the feminist movement. As with anything, there are good and bad things about them. Women are now able to be on equal ground with men when it comes to rights and that is quite an acheivement. But, some have taken this movement into far off aspects where a woman becomes the Queen and ruler of her body as though any living child in her is not granted the same rights as a person already born (ie. Life, liberty and persuit of happiness). Now, I am all for equal rights but somewhere along the line this swung from women not having rights, to unborn children not having rights and even fewer rights then the women that now have rights, because women had a right to Life, Liberty and Persuit of happiness.
We are seeing today the taking of some of our Constitutional Rights regarding Religious Freedom. Back with the Wade vs Roe case we witnessed the removal of the three basic Rights from conception until full birth. NOW... we may soon see children and adults being selectively chosen to have all three Rights taken away and these all are leading to a country that no longer provides the Constitutional Rights to it's citizens.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Lord, You invite all who are burdened to come to You. Allow your healing hand to heal me. Touch my soul with Your compassion for others. Touch my heart with Your courage and infinite love for all. Touch my mind with Your wisdom, that my mouth may always proclaim Your praise. Teach me to reach out to You in my need, and help me to lead others to You by my example. Most loving Heart of Jesus, bring me health in body and spirit that I may serve You with all my strength. Touch gently this life which You have created, now and forever. Amen. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
If abortion, why not infanticide? This leading question is often treated as a canard by supporters of abortion. However, it is seriously argued by two Italian utilitarians and published online in the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics this week.
Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are associated respectively with Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia, and with the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, at the University of Melbourne.
They argue that both the fetus and the new-born infant are only potential persons without any interests. Therefore the interests of the persons involved with them are paramount until some indefinite time after birth. To emphasise the continuity between the two acts, they term it “after-birth abortion” rather than infanticide.
Their conclusions may shock but Guibilini and Minerva assert them very confidently. “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.” This assertion highlights another aspect of their argument. Killing an infant after birth is not euthanasia either. In euthanasia, a doctor would be seeking the best interests of the person who dies. But in “after-birth abortion” it is the interests of people involved, not the baby.
To critical eyes, their argument will no doubt look like a slippery slope, as they are simply seeking to extend the logic of abortion to infanticide:
If abortion, why not infanticide? This leading question is often treated as a canard by supporters of abortion. However, it is seriously argued by two Italian utilitarians and published online in the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics this week.
Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are associated respectively with Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia, and with the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, at the University of Melbourne.
They argue that both the fetus and the new-born infant are only potential persons without any interests. Therefore the interests of the persons involved with them are paramount until some indefinite time after birth. To emphasise the continuity between the two acts, they term it “after-birth abortion” rather than infanticide.
Their conclusions may shock but Guibilini and Minerva assert them very confidently. “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.” This assertion highlights another aspect of their argument. Killing an infant after birth is not euthanasia either. In euthanasia, a doctor would be seeking the best interests of the person who dies. But in “after-birth abortion” it is the interests of people involved, not the baby.
To critical eyes, their argument will no doubt look like a slippery slope, as they are simply seeking to extend the logic of abortion to infanticide:
Linear Mode
