After-birth Abortions

JacktheCatholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.
Mar 9, 2007
24,545
2,797
56
Michigan, USA
Visit site
✟44,388.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,483
55,182
Woods
✟4,582,836.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Brooklyn Knight

On a narrow road but not narrow minded
Nov 21, 2011
4,438
187
Brooklyn, NY
✟13,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
Academics' defense of infanticide supported by pro-choice logic


Abortion supporters can see their own principles and logic reflected in a new article advocating the killing of newborn children, published by the Journal of Medical Ethics in February 2012.
Full story »

A baby isn't a "person" until it's a month old (Even if it's 24 days old, it's not a human), a baby isn't a "person" if it's not wanted, a baby isn't a "person" if it's born with a disability, etc.

And these "intellectuals" get a hissy fit when you compare their outlook to the Nazis. Well, sorry if others see the parallels.
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,739
9,305
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟428,486.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Eventually they're going to legalize murder by calling it "after birth abortion."

Or some sort of mercy killing post abortion...for the elderly.
Which is already going on.
 
Upvote 0

AMDG

Tenderized for Christ
May 24, 2004
25,362
1,286
74
Pacific Northwest, United States
✟47,022.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Or some sort of mercy killing post abortion...for the elderly.
Which is already going on.

Try not to remind me. We have legalized assisted suicide here and just about everyone and his cousin thinks it so great and recommends that we sign a paper to kill ourselves. There is *no* presumption of life (of wanting to live) in this state anymore, so if that's the desire, better have a lawyer draw up papers to specifically say it (husband and I have had to) or it's "good bye, that's all she wrote".
 
Upvote 0

JacktheCatholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.
Mar 9, 2007
24,545
2,797
56
Michigan, USA
Visit site
✟44,388.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Try not to remind me. We have legalized assisted suicide here and just about everyone and his cousin thinks it so great and recommends that we sign a paper to kill ourselves. There is *no* presumption of life (of wanting to live) in this state anymore, so if that's the desire, better have a lawyer draw up papers to specifically say it (husband and I have had to) or it's "good bye, that's all she wrote".


My father-in-law has been wanting to die for years now. It may well be a side effect of the dozens of medications he is taking. He is also a craddle Catholic who attends church every Sunday and day of Obligation. This last week he has been at Beaumont Hospital (he hoped kidney failure but it is urinary tract infection) and the hospital psychologist has been seeing him and on one visit asked if he wanted help in dying...

This is Michigan and this is where Jack Kavorkian did his thing. My family has been praying for him every night. Our parish priest has been out to see him. He is in good enough health to keep living for who knows how long though he is doing some suffering and much of that is due to his refusal to change his way of living.

If the State/Federal Gvernment approves euthenasia or assisted suicide then I fear that if he is offered this option then he may choose it and as a Catholic who has been told different I fear for his soul.

The last time I was around him I was very stern about this and now he does not want to see me because I made him upset. So, pray and pray, I guess. I pray for my father-in-law and the Obama and not just the Pope and the bishops and church and my family but specifically for the FIL and Obama.
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,073
5,543
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟272,747.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MKJ
Upvote 0

Brooklyn Knight

On a narrow road but not narrow minded
Nov 21, 2011
4,438
187
Brooklyn, NY
✟13,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
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.)

Exactly who I had in mind when I made my last post.

Here's the irony: He had family perish in the Holocaust.
 
Upvote 0

Antigone

The Wrath of Whatever
Apr 20, 2006
12,023
1,324
De Boendoks
✟33,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Why does Pro-Choice always mean Pro-Abortion? I consider myself Pro-Life but not necessarily Anti-Choice.

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.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tigg

Senior Veteran
Jan 5, 2007
6,429
734
✟17,774.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0

Luther073082

κύριε ἐλέησον χριστὲ ἐλέησον
Apr 1, 2007
19,202
840
41
New Carlisle, IN
✟31,326.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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?
 
Upvote 0

JacktheCatholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.
Mar 9, 2007
24,545
2,797
56
Michigan, USA
Visit site
✟44,388.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,483
55,182
Woods
✟4,582,836.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Ethicists O.K. 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:

Continued- http://catholicexchange.com/ethicists-o-k-infanticide/
 
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,483
55,182
Woods
✟4,582,836.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Ethicists O.K. 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:

Continued- http://catholicexchange.com/ethicists-o-k-infanticide/
 
Upvote 0