After-birth abortions--The next step for Planned Parenthood?

[Immanuel]

Note for complete disclosure: these two "ethicists" stretching the word there, are from Australia not America.

Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After-Birth Abortions | TheBlaze.com

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

<snip>

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] 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.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

<snip>

The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

Of course they don't want to call it what it really is... infanticide. I wouldn't want to either.

I'm almost afraid to guess who on this board will be defending this idea. I would bet TM for sure, but who else?

Does this disgust anyone else besides me?

Immie

 

[Peach]

Note for complete disclosure: these two "ethicists" stretching the word there, are from Australia not America.

Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After-Birth Abortions | TheBlaze.com

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

<snip>

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] 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.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

<snip>

The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

Of course they don't want to call it what it really is... infanticide. I wouldn't want to either.

I'm almost afraid to guess who on this board will be defending this idea. I would bet TM for sure, but who else?

Does this disgust anyone else besides me?

Immie

Yes it is disgusting. BEYOND disgusting actually:

Because it &#8220;[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which &#8216;abortions&#8217; in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.&#8221;
****************************************************
".....moral status of the INDIVIDUAL killed is LOATHSOME."

 

[Katzndogz]

In the US it's called post birth abortion. According to obama's health czar John Holdren it should be legal up to two years.

 

[whitehall]

It should be noted that Obama worked to legalize a form of infanticide when he was a state senator. In place of the then banned "late term abortion or partial birth abortion " a Chicago hospital had a better idea. They would induce delivery and let the baby die on the table without so much as a blanket to comfort it. A custodian handed a nurse, who was unaware of the procedure, a live baby that had been thrown in the garbage. The nurse blew the whistle on the manslaughter and Obama kept it going. The nurse was fired.

 

[Peach]

In the US it's called post birth abortion. According to obama's health czar John Holdren it should be legal up to two years.

Holden said that? If so, remove him from office beginning NOW.

 

[Katzndogz]

In the US it's called post birth abortion. According to obama's health czar John Holdren it should be legal up to two years.

Holden said that? If so, remove him from office beginning NOW.

abortion up to 2 yrs old

the man who takes the cake (so far) is John Holdren, a Harvard University Professor (aren’t they all), who has advocated in the past that it would be okay to abort an infant up to two years old. That’s right, kill babies. His reasoning is that until the baby can realize that there’s a tomorrow, the baby is not really human.

He also has postulated that sterilants (birth control drugs) should be added to the water we drink, on the grounds that there are already too many people, and certainly too many of the wrong kind, whatever that is supposed to mean.

President Obama’s “science czar,” Paul Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, “compulsory sterilization,” and the creation of a “Planetary Regime” that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet — controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.

He was confirmed with little fanfare on March 19 as director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, a 50-person directorate that advises the president on scientific affairs, focusing on energy independence and global warming.

 

[L.K.Eder]

op negged for gratuitous tm slam

 

[Peach]

In the US it's called post birth abortion. According to obama's health czar John Holdren it should be legal up to two years.

Holden said that? If so, remove him from office beginning NOW.

abortion up to 2 yrs old

the man who takes the cake (so far) is John Holdren, a Harvard University Professor (aren’t they all), who has advocated in the past that it would be okay to abort an infant up to two years old. That’s right, kill babies. His reasoning is that until the baby can realize that there’s a tomorrow, the baby is not really human.

He also has postulated that sterilants (birth control drugs) should be added to the water we drink, on the grounds that there are already too many people, and certainly too many of the wrong kind, whatever that is supposed to mean.

President Obama’s “science czar,” Paul Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, “compulsory sterilization,” and the creation of a “Planetary Regime” that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet — controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.

He was confirmed with little fanfare on March 19 as director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, a 50-person directorate that advises the president on scientific affairs, focusing on energy independence and global warming.

The article notes Holdren's work on climate change. I see a couple off the wall sites claiming he said children up to the age of 2 could be killed, but the Wiki site does not indicate any advocacy of infanticide. The link is to "Sodahead", perhaps not reliable. Here is what John Paul Holdren actually said:

Hold Off On Holdren (Again)

He wrote a book about the practice of infanticide but did NOT advocate it.

 

[Ernie S.]

In the US it's called post birth abortion. According to obama's health czar John Holdren it should be legal up to two years.

Holden said that? If so, remove him from office beginning NOW.

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

While I don't see him actually saying abortions could be performed up to age 2, I suppose an inference could be made'

“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” Holdren wrote.