1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

On the subject of babies being used as guinea pigs....

Discussion in 'The Ancient Way - Eastern Orthodox' started by Dorothea, Mar 3, 2012.

  1. Dorothea

    Dorothea One of God's handmaidens

    Messages:
    20,248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Female
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    In the discussion on the other thread about contraceptives and abortion and such, there was an article I'd posted through a website about after-birth abortion and such. Although this guy's words seem OTT and I'm not liking the talk of murder and aborting others, but I don't think he's serious, I can't say I totally disagree with him on this issue. As far as the vaccine argument...I don't know enough to really know, but he seems to. This is a long read, but I was wondering what you all thought on these subjects:

    When do we get to euthanize the medical ethicists who say murdering newborn babies is good for society?

    Friday, March 02, 2012
    by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
    Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)


    In an article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, scientists argue that killing newborn babies is ethically no different than abortion and should therefore be openly allowed in society. The paper says newborn babies are not "actual persons" and that they do not have "a moral right to life." (See sources, below.)

    The authors of the article are mainstream medicine ethicists named Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. One is a former Oxford scholar. In their paper, they argue "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."

    Several death threats have been leveled against the scientists, although it's hard to actually call them "death" threats since scientists who recognize no sense of life in newborn babies can't possibly be living themselves, right? At best, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are mindless zombies, so whacking off their heads with a chainsaw would seemingly be no more meaningful than turning off the switch to a hollow sack of skin that contains no soul.

    I'm being sarcastic, of course, by using their own mad reasoning against them. They call the murder of infants nothing more than "after-birth abortion" and declare that "it should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is."

    Can we still abort these scientists? Or is it too late for that?

    Finally out in the open: The mass murder / eugenics agenda of abortion pushers

    In one sense, it sure is refreshing to see all this admitted for a change. Instead of hiding behind the false explanations and excuse-making that we normally hear from the abortion crowd, we now get an uncensored, heartless attack on human life wrapped in a "scientific" paper of such arrogance and destruction that it can only make you wonder just how totally mad the medical scientists have now become.

    If a human baby has no value to them, then probably neither does a young tree, or a newborn wild animal, or a seed sprout. Life is not sacred to the conventional medical industry; it is merely something to be exploited for power and profit. This is precisely the ethical context under which GMOs are pushed... or chemotherapy, or even vaccines.

    In fact, the argument of these medical ethicists -- that babies may be murdered because raising them could create an undue burden on society -- is exactly the same logic of the vaccine murderers -- that it's okay if a few children die during a mass vaccination campaign because it reduces the health care burden on society. That's a lie, of course, because vaccines don't actually reduce the spread of infectious disease at all. They increase it, as Jon Rappoport covers in excruciating detail in his new course "Vaccines: Armed and Dangerous." (NaturalNews.com)

    In attempting to explain why the Journal of Medical Ethics chose to publish a paper promoting the mass murder of newborn babies, its editor offered the following deplorable self-justification: "The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises."

    Well-reasoned? Murdering babies is now "reasoned?"

    Using human babies as vaccine guinea pigs

    If the conventional medical industry sees nothing wrong with murdering newborn babies, no wonder it simultaneously has no problem using them as human guinea pigs on which mad medical experiments are conducted.

    Over the last hundred years or so, pharmaceutical and vaccine makers have been repeatedly caught using babies as guinea pigs to test the "safety" of their deadly drugs and vaccines. Such events almost always end up murdering a few dozen children, an outcome which is labeled "scientific progress" because it provided fatality data to the corporate sponsors of the experiments.

    Pfizer murdered children Nigeria using precisely such a scheme (After 15-year court battle, Pfizer reluctantly compensates Nigerian families whose loved ones injured, killed by illegal drug experiment), and the U.S. federal government openly funded "scientific" drug company experiments on human prisoners in Guatemala (Guatemalan STD medical experiments were just one crime in a long history of medical-government collusion to use humans as guinea pigs). In fact, there are literally hundreds of cases of drug companies and governments using innocent children in "scientific" medical experiments, always claiming that the benefit to society outweighs their murdering ways.

    These are, of course, the mad murder profiling behaviors of psychotic killers who nevertheless are widely commended and even heralded as world-renowned scientists in the realm of conventional (mainstream) medicine. Yet if anyone on the planet deserves to be justifiably killed by the villagers, it's these mad "scientific" baby killers and vaccine experiment pushers. As they recognize no value in human life whatsoever, they represent a clear and present danger to the safety of society and might best be dispatched in electric chairs or tightly-bound neck ropes before they unleash another Hitler-era holocaust of eugenics across the globe.

    Famed physicist Stephen Hawking also sees no ethical violation in mass murder

    Lest you think this genocidal streak among the so-called scientific community is limited to just a couple of medical whackos who wrote a paper in a science journal, recall the fact that famed physicist Stephen Hawking openly and adamantly insists human beings are nothing more than "biological robots" who have no souls, no consciousness, no free will and therefore no value as anything other than a collection of cells.

    Snuffing out the lights on something that isn't really alive can't exactly be called murder, can it? So the bizarre view that human beings are not conscious beings with minds or souls is, of course, the prerequisite argument to justifying their mass murder.

    "It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion."
    - Stephen Hawking, the Grand Design

    If free will is nothing more than an illusion, then that means you aren't responsible for your own actions anyway, so committing mass murder against others is morally neutral for you. Killing babies is of no consequence. Heck, you might as well just pick up a full-auto M4, march into a local high school, and start blasting away all the students, teachers and principal, then claim it must have been your biology that caused you to do it because according to Stephen Hawking, you have no mind or consciousness to begin with. That's the kind of madness the quack philosophies of people like Hawking end up promoting.

    But it isn't just Hawking who believes humans have no value as conscious, living beings -- DNA discovered Francis Crick also pushed the same stilted beliefs:

    "You, your joys and sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules,", Crick claimed in his book The Astonishing Hypothesis."

    This view by Crick, just like the view of Hawking, is that human beings are merely biological machines that only appear to house conscious beings inside. A newborn is just a really advanced fetus, and a fetus is just a couple of cells, they might argue. So a teenage boy playing baseball at the local park is just an advanced version of a newborn, and we can murder him too, if we like. In fact, nobody is off limits from these genocidal maniacs because at no point in human development do psychotic scientific whackos like Hawking or Crick admit that consciousness enters the body, thereby achieving some degree of merit or value as a living, breathing, free-thinking being.

    These same views are mirrored across the so-called "scientific" community, which has increasingly revealed itself to be a collection of death merchants, corporate sellouts, clinical quacks and hyper-arrogant God complex worshippers whose deepest dreams always seem to involve destroying humanity.

    Such is the current aim of none other than Bill Gates, the Microsoft pioneer who now spends his time (and money) preaching the benefits of depopulation. I have no doubt Bill Gates also supports the view that killing babies is no different than aborting them in the womb, but since he hasn't publicly made that statement yet (and probably won't), this will have to remain mere conjecture.

    We can, however, remain confident in his new nickname, the Sperminator! (Bill Gates is the Sperminator - CounterThink.com)

    Stop creating mutant babies in the first place

    Part of the justification of all this in the minds of these baby killers, by the way, is that parents should not have to raise deformed babies, and since many deformities aren't obvious until the moment of birth, parents should have the right to just euthanize the child right after birth, like putting down the family dog. Don't like your first baby? Shoot him and make another, they seem to suggest.

    That's modern medical ethics for ya, huh?

    I have a better idea: Why don't we stop causing birth defects in pregnant women in the first place? Have you noticed over the last 2-3 years how aggressively these baby-killing doctors are pushing for mass vaccination of pregnant women? Until about 2009, vaccine shots were never recommended for pregnant women because medical professionals knew the vaccines would cause either birth defects or spontaneous abortions (VERY common in women who are vaccinated while pregnant).

    Well now, all of a sudden, there are vaccine ads for pregnant women everywhere. The argument now is that pregnant women need MORE vaccines in order to protect themselves and their babies. Hallmark cards even distributes vaccination compliance cards for new moms (Hallmark now distributing vaccine shot compliance cards targeting newborns across America) to help make sure newborn babies get injected with an often-fatal cocktail of toxic vaccine chemicals.

    Do you see the real agenda behind all this? It's yet another depopulation tactic. Vaccinate all the pregnant women and you'll lose maybe another 10% of all the babies through spontaneous abortion. Bill Gates marks that down as a depopulation victory!

    When do we get to abort all the mad scientists?

    That there remains a group of mad eugenics "scientists" in our world who openly and unapologetically promote the mass murder of living newborn babies is itself disturbing enough. But what's really frustrating is that the rest of us can't just take a machete to these people because we are bound by a higher sense of honoring the value of life -- even the lives of those who are destroyers of life.

    Because after all, if the argument is that we can openly kill people as long as such murders benefit society, then there's a really, really long list of people who need to be taken out, starting with many of the top death-merchant scientists who push all this madness. (But we don't do that kind of thing, because we're decent people, see?)

    If we kill them at age 55, it's not really murder, remember. It's just a really drawn-out post-partum abortion, they say. In fact, according to these science psychos, you can kill anybody right up to the day they die and still call it an abortion. It's all just a matter of time, and time is an illusion, the physicists claim.

    So get out your chainsaws, ninja swords and poison blowgun darts, friends. Saddle up and lock-and-load. There's some death to deal out on this here planet, and thanks to the likes of authors who are published in mainstream scientific journals, it's now a total free-for-all death derby on the human race!

    If you kill enough people, you might even win a free subscription to the Journal of Medical Ethics!

    Editor's note: Please don't actually kill anyone after reading this article. Some of the language used herein is presented in a tongue-in-cheek style of indignant sarcasm in order to draw attention to the outrageous absurdity of the medical ethicists being covered here. We do not condone actually killing anyone. Not even those who very clearly deserve it.



    When do we get to euthanize the medical ethicists who say murdering newborn babies is good for society?
     
  2. gracefullamb

    gracefullamb Junior Member

    Messages:
    1,387
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    The only vaccines that are safe for a pregnant women are inactivated. The only ones that are recommended are Influenza and Dtap if it isn't current- again inactive vaccines of these. The other vaccines that a pregnant women could get are only if she is at risk due to travel- rabies & mengingococcal or due to working in healthcare- Hep B. Any other vaccines being recommended should have one running away and finding a new doctor because that one is quack.

    This author is mistaken that this thought process is only now going to be accepted due to the two doctors and their paper. The past ten years in our country has seen two court cases where the parents sued their doctor due to their child being born with a genetic illness that had not been test for. Both cases had the parents claiming that if the genetic tests had been done they would have aborted the child. The parents further claimed since the genetic illness was such their children would never be physically or mentally capable of more than that of toddler it would be kindness if euthanasia were allowed. Both cases were decided by jury and the parents won in both cases. Granted this was a monetary settlement and not a suit to end their children's lives but the jury sided with their arguments in both cases. Just something to think about.

    To add to that there are currently 4 states that already allow doctors to murder, lets call it what it is murder, their patients that are terminally ill or need certain life supporting measures. In fact one of these states there was a case argued in court of a child being murdered by his doctors. The parents did not want the child's life supporting measure removed, there have in fact been many patients with this child's illness that had lived to be 19-20 years old. The doctors and hospital on the other hand did want to stop treatment and sadly the court sided with them. Polling shows that over 70% of Americans support euthanasia, not only for the aforementioned but also for certain genetic defects, Alzheimer, and dementia. That should really scare us that our society has gotten to a point that collectively human life is thought so little of.

    Our society puts so little stock in human life, we have arbitrarily set a point (outside of the womb) that dictates one is a person. We base that point (legally and medically) on the fact an unborn baby cannot survive outside of the womb before a certain date. There is nothing to stop people who think like this from also going the next step and stating a newborn baby cannot survive on his own and thus shouldn't be considered a person as well. Such an argument based on what our society has already accepted legally and medically, could be made, immoral, exceedingly terrifying, but none the less it could be made simply on precedence. When we (our society) allowed/ accepted the argument that an unborn baby is not really a person until they can live outside the womb it really came down to a matter of time before this new and frightful scenario would also be accepted, that too should scare us.

    My point is, the writing is there on the wall and it won't be long before infanticide is accepted. I don't agree with it, it makes me exceedingly angry. If I had my way not only would abortion be outlawed but the so called medical professionals who performed them would be charged with murder, as well as the women who have them done and the men who pressure them to seek an abortion.
     
    Dorothea likes this.
  3. buzuxi02

    buzuxi02 Veteran

    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    19
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    Infanticide is already accepted in certain segments of Indian and Chinese society as is gendercide. In the west, even with our dwindling population rates abortion is a right passage for many women. Welcome to the enlightened 21st century folks.

    I remember way back like 20 years ago when the future hope was in finding treatments and cures for debilitating illnesses, unfortunately the solution today is that people are/or become expendable either in old age, or of their disables or if your a baby, just kill off the obselete and undesireables.
     
  4. Dorothea

    Dorothea One of God's handmaidens

    Messages:
    20,248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Female
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    Thanks very much for this info, graceful, and I know there have been past cases like you mentioned. It is terrifying and very sad...makes one grieve for our world. :(

    But this whole thing with euthanasia for the elderly and disabled, or whatever....it all seems to go with the Darwin theory of survival of the fittest. That's what it seems like in this society and many other ones. Eugenics, etc., fit into this too. If you aren't productive in the society, you're useless, apparently. Ugh.

    I read on somebody's FB page yesterday, the headline of an article where a journalist agreed with killing newborn babies and that it's already being done in Sweden! Lord, have mercy!

    There is very little respect for human life, especially how people are persuaded and told over and over again until it's believed that babies in the womb aren't human beings with a soul and belong to God.

    Every time I see my FB friends that are big women libbers complain and shout out their rights to their body, I want to say "That's fine for women to have rights, but they HAVE NO RIGHT TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING NO MATTER IF THE HUMAN IS IN THEIR BODY! THE HUMAN BELONGS TO GOD!"
     
  5. ArmyMatt

    ArmyMatt Regular Member

    Messages:
    14,466
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    come Lord Jesus! sad times we live in
     
    Dorothea likes this.
  6. Ignatius21

    Ignatius21 Can somebody please pass the incense?

    Messages:
    2,182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    I'm not sure what to make of the author's screed against vaccines. I'm still trying to learn about that myself, and it isn't easy. But I"ll separate that issue.

    I read this article that was published. It made me sick. But it is a very useful tool, in the sense that it is logically coherent and well-reasoned. They expertly demonstrate that their conclusions follow their premises...applying simple logic, you can't help but agree with them...unless you reject their premises. And that's exactly the issue. People who want to support abortion inevitably end up playing word games with "person" and "alive" to try to somehow say that you're killing a
    but not actually killing a
    . Yet they recoil against any suggestion that the same logic leads to killing babies after they're already born...which flies in the face of their own tortured definitions of "person." They are the ones being logically inconsistent.

    This article is actually a welcome publication because it takes off the gloves and unapologetically "puts it out there." They boldly say "Hell yes the same logic means we should kill newborn babies if the parents don't want them, and hell yes that's perfectly OK." I would hope that this would show pro-choice people that their own positions are actually far more heinous than they realize.
     
  7. Dorothea

    Dorothea One of God's handmaidens

    Messages:
    20,248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Female
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    Good points, and I hope so too.
     
  8. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) CF Ambassador

    Messages:
    17,618
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Oriental-Orthodox
    Sad...

    They already use the remains of babies for drink products, so testing on babies even after they're born is not surprising...

    And for more on where babies were being used in drink products:

    For a brief excerpt:

    The controversy on whether PepsiCo and other companies like Kraft and Nestle can continue to contract with a company that uses the cells from a aborted fetus for research has been answered by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, and the answer is yes.

    In a news release today from Children of God for Life, the agency, which has spearheaded the boycott, reports on the decision made last week after an SEC resolution from PepsiCo shareholders asked that they adopt a policy of human rights and stop contracting with a company doing fetal cell research for flavor testing. COG reports:



    So it’s ordinary to use an aborted fetus to derive cells on which to run testing for flavor additives? Actually, sadly, it is. Why shouldn’t it be? US legal code actually allows fetal research. Click here for the law. Last year the shareholders of the company filed a resolution with the Securities and Exchange Commission, a federal office that regulates stock, trading, and such practices. The shareholders asked that PepsiCo to stop using this research and adopt a “human rights policy” on the matter. That in itself was a big deal because a shareholder resolution is essentially a public complaint by investors; they don’t air interior dirty laundry unless it’s serious. But in the last week, PepsiCo and the SEC both said, too bad.
    Children of God for Life reports:

    Not only that but here’s what PepsiCo’s lead attorney said the resolution should be disregarded because:

    So PepsiCo can develop its products, including a new drink, and contract with Senomyx, using the cells of an electively aborted baby to do its research and that’s “ordinary.” According to PepsiCo’s attorney, the shareholders just don’t get it.

    On the contrary I’d say the shareholders get it better than the company.
    Let me address something here. I’ve received numerous personal complaints that I am accusing Pepsi of putting aborted babies in their products. No one has ever said that (at least from reputable agencies). What we are saying is that PepsiCo (and Kraft, Frito-Lay, Nestle) are contracting with Senomyx which is a company that creates flavor testers and one of the ways they do it is with the cells of HEK 293, an electively aborted baby’s kidney cells. Of course the baby isn’t in the Pepsi or other product, but the flavor that makes it taste good to you was made from the profit of shedding of innocent blood. That’s why even PepsiCo’s own shareholders said enough was enough—and PepsiCo? They say, they are just doing business.
     
  9. gracefullamb

    gracefullamb Junior Member

    Messages:
    1,387
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    Actually Darwin's "survival of the fittest" just managed to give "proof" to and validate the Victorians who already believed in Social Eugenics. The upper crust of the Darwin's time already believed that bad breeding led to poverty, imbeciles, violence, theft, prostitution, murder, and alcoholism, to name just some of the things they blamed on breeding. Since bad breeding caused these things maybe they should be allowed to have children. Darwin's theories just gave them something to use to back their argument. I read a great book about 10 years ago that discussed the social mindset before Darwin's theories and pointed out how many of the upper crust were already practicing social eugenics and with his theories they came became very vocal about it. The book proposed though, that Darwin's are absolutely important for people to accept euthanasia, abortion and forced sterilization of undesirables.

    Just FYI for everyone actually: It is actually Doe v. Bolton that gets us to the whole "My body my right to chose" and a woman being allowed to have an aborton for any reason whatsover. I read a legal opinion that stated Roe v. Wade probably would have no weight behind it without Doe v. Bolton. I point this out because Mary Doe (Sandra Cano) didn't even want an abortion. She wanted a divorce and to place the child she was carrying up for adoption, which she did. She actually thought she was signing divorce papers when she signed to be able to sue for an abortion. Very bizarre life btw. The social eugenicists would have a field day using her and her family for arguments. Hollywood could never write such an odd story.
     
  10. Dorothea

    Dorothea One of God's handmaidens

    Messages:
    20,248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Female
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    Easy G: that is horrible!

    gracefullamb: thank you for the info.

    I don't ever want to hear people going on about this country being a "Christian country" again after what I've read!
     
  11. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) CF Ambassador

    Messages:
    17,618
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Oriental-Orthodox
    Shocked me learning of it..and how no one is saying anything because no one really cares..
    So true...


    I get a bit upset with people whenever they make-believe that the nation is a Christian country and assume that the phrase "In God we Trust' means that the nation was once submitted to the God of the Bible. Never has it been a "Christian Country" since the foundation, even though there were many references to "God" or Christian principles. What seems to be happening today is the natural evolution of where the country was destined to go when Christ really wasn't the center---and although many feel that it's wrong for others to say that we're no longer a "Christian nation" (per President Obama as he did last year), I think it's best to say that at least the nation is simply shedding the use of the label that was being wrongfully used.

    The abortion issue is grieving, yet it's ironic when others say that it's the first time such evil has happened with babies being killed since the U.S has had a history of supporting abortion/genocide--as it concerns forced abortions with blacks and Native Americans/others who were deemed inferior from the foundation of our nation. Now the abortions have simply gone to a national level where all celebrate it......
     
  12. Dorothea

    Dorothea One of God's handmaidens

    Messages:
    20,248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Female
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    I quite agree.
     
  13. Dorothea

    Dorothea One of God's handmaidens

    Messages:
    20,248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Female
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    Here's a blog Fr. Johannes Jacobse just posted on this very topic:

    Something Deadly This Way Comes
    March 7, 2012 1:57 PM | Fr. Johannes Jacobse

    – HT: OrthodoxNet.com Blog
    The insatiable appetite of the Culture of Death

    The debate over abortion comes down to one essential issue — the moral status of the unborn child. Those making the case for the legalization of abortion argue that the developing fetus lacks a moral status that would trump a woman’s desire to abort the child. Those arguing against abortion do so by making the opposite claim; that the unborn child, precisely because it is a developing human being, possesses a moral status by the very fact of its human existence that would clearly trump any rationale offered for its willful destruction.

    This central issue is often obscured in both public argument and private conversations about abortion, but it remains the essential question. We have laws against homicide, and if the unborn child is recognized legally and morally as a human being, abortion would be rightly seen as murder.

    In the main, abortion rights advocates have drawn the moral line at the moment of birth. That is why, even with our contemporary knowledge of the developing fetus, abortion rights activists have persistently argued in favor of abortions right up to the moment of birth. Anyone doubting this claim needs only to consider the unified opposition of leading abortion rights advocates to restrictions on late-term abortions.

    From the beginning of the controversy over abortion, this supposedly bright line of the moment of birth has been unstable. Abortion rights activists have even opposed efforts to restrict the gruesome reality known as partial-birth abortions. The moment of birth has never been the bright line of safety that the defenders of abortion have claimed.

    Now, an even more chilling development comes in the form of an article just published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Professors Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne and Oxford University, now argue for the morality and legalization of “after-birth abortion.”

    These authors do not hide their agenda. They are calling for the legal killing of newborn children.

    The argument put forth in their article bears a haunting resemblance to the proposal advocated by Dr. Peter Singer of Princeton University, who has argued that the killing of a newborn baby, known as infanticide, should be allowable up to the point that the child develops some ability to communicate and to anticipate the future.

    Giubilini and Minerva now argue that newborn human infants lack the ability to anticipate the future, and thus that after-birth abortions should be permitted.

    The authors explain that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion” to “infanticide” because their term makes clear the fact that the argument comes down to the fact that the birth of the child is not morally significant.

    They propose two justifying arguments:

    First: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.”

    Second: “It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to be a person in the morally relevant sense.”

    Thus: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack the properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
    Those assertions are as chilling as anything yet to appear in the academic literature of medical ethics. This is a straightforward argument for the permissibility of murdering newborn human infants. The authors make their argument with the full intention of seeing this transformed into public policy. Further, they go on to demonstrate the undiluted evil of their proposal by refusing even to set an upper limit on the permissible age of a child to be killed by “after-birth abortion.”

    These “medical ethicists” argue that a traditional abortion is a preferred option, but then state:

    “Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social, or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.”

    Nothing could possibly justify the killing of a child, but these professors are so bold as to argue that even “economical, social, or psychological circumstances” would be sufficient justification.

    This article in the Journal of Medical Ethics is a clear signal of just how much ground has been lost to the Culture of Death. A culture that grows accustomed to death in the womb will soon contemplate killing in the nursery. The very fact that this article was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal is an indication of the peril we face.
    For years now, pro-life activists have been lectured that “slippery slope” arguments are false. This article makes clear the fact that our warnings have not been based in a slippery slope argument, but in the very reality of abortion. Abortion implies infanticide. If the unborn child lacks sufficient moral status by the fact that it is unborn, then the baby in the nursery, it is now argued, has also not yet developed human personhood.
    The publication of this article signals the fact that a medical debate on this question has been ongoing. The only sane response to this argument is the affirmation of the objective moral status of the human being at every point of development, from fertilization until natural death. Anything less than the affirmation of full humanity puts every single human being at risk of being designated as not “a person in the morally relevant sense.”

    Something very deadly this way comes. This argument will not remain limited to the pages of an academic journal. The murderous appetite of the Culture of Death will never be satisfied.

    Something Deadly This Way Comes - AOI Observer
     
  14. Dorothea

    Dorothea One of God's handmaidens

    Messages:
    20,248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Female
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
  15. ArmyMatt

    ArmyMatt Regular Member

    Messages:
    14,466
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
  16. Dorothea

    Dorothea One of God's handmaidens

    Messages:
    20,248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Female
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    Definitely!