Infancticide as Public Policy...Now!

[koshergrl]

That is the thought. That there are instances where killing babies can be justified, you puke.

 

[koshergrl]

You think you can hide it in meandering commentary about how horrible life is, and how much better it is for babies to be dead than alive..but it comes down to you saying that there are instances where you think it's okay to kill a baby.

And of course it isn't the first time you've said it. Progressives ultimately are all for the killing of substandard children, old people, etc....

 

[Ernie S.]

I see this as Something that belongs on the evening news.
I see it as a perfect example of how far progressives are willing to go. I thought obama had achieved the lowest point imaginable. It seems that now some advocate going even farther.
Is this what "Progressive" is?

 

[koshergrl]

It's not just him, it's all of them.

 

[koshergrl]

He's just one who is stupid enough to say it. Usually they prevaricate and change the subject..and when that doesn't work they start trying to change definitions of what the words mean...for example "infant"..."kill"...."alive"....."baby"....etc.

 

[Dragon]

I see this as Something that belongs on the evening news.
I see it as a perfect example of how far progressives are willing to go. I thought obama had achieved the lowest point imaginable. It seems that now some advocate going even farther.
Is this what "Progressive" is?

So tell me, Ernie. If a baby is born with an incurable, fatal nervous disorder that will leave it in unbelievable suffering for months and then kill it, would you think it acceptable to put it out of its misery? If an infant is born without a cerebral cortex, essentially a vegetable that has to be kept alive on life-support, would you think it acceptable to pull the plug?

If not, why not? If so, then would you not agree that there are SOME (admittedly, extremely limited) circumstances in which infanticide makes sense, and that the mere word is not properly an excuse for trolling and flame-bait?

 

[koshergrl]

Told you so. "Put it out of it's misery".

 

[Ernie S.]

I see this as Something that belongs on the evening news.
I see it as a perfect example of how far progressives are willing to go. I thought obama had achieved the lowest point imaginable. It seems that now some advocate going even farther.
Is this what "Progressive" is?

So tell me, Ernie. If a baby is born with an incurable, fatal nervous disorder that will leave it in unbelievable suffering for months and then kill it, would you think it acceptable to put it out of its misery? If an infant is born without a cerebral cortex, essentially a vegetable that has to be kept alive on life-support, would you think it acceptable to pull the plug?

If not, why not? If so, then would you not agree that there are SOME (admittedly, extremely limited) circumstances in which infanticide makes sense, and that the mere word is not properly an excuse for trolling and flame-bait?

I can see instances where withholding heroic measures would be justified, but not outright killing and certainly not "for the well being of the family as suggested in the OP.
I really hope this debate gets legs. It will show all those "undecided" voters just how disgusting Progressives can become.

 

[editec]

What could be more despicable than the murder of a defenseless new-born infant?

Lying about the murder of new born infants to impose your will on women?

There's probably more things that are more dispicable, but we can start out with that and work our way into a shitstorm of trading childish insults if you wanna.

 

[Dragon]

I can see instances where withholding heroic measures would be justified, but not outright killing and certainly not "for the well being of the family as suggested in the OP.

Well, I disagree with a lot of what the OP says, too, as I said in my post earlier, which PC mined for more flame-bait and otherwise ignored. I would agree that the circumstances in which infanticide would be acceptable are EXTREMELY rare and limited, and I have the same opinion about late-term abortion, which in my thinking amounts to the same thing as infanticide, since a fetus right before birth is really just about as developed as a newborn, with a fully-functioning brain and everything. Except, as I said, when it has a medical condition that turns it into a vegetable.

There's really no need to allow infanticide "for the good of the family" as long as we allow early-pregnancy abortion. If abortion is legal in the first trimester at least, there's plenty of opportunity for any responsible pregnant woman to terminate the pregnancy, and no excuse for making that decision in later pregnancy or after the baby is born. In the ancient world, infanticide was practiced for the same reasons abortion is now, but that's because the primitive medicine back then didn't allow safe abortion. We are not under similar constraints. So I think that's a stupid idea.

On the other hand, I also think making important decisions by jerking knees and foaming at the mouth is even stupider. And using the word "infanticide" as a push-button to provoke an emotional reaction spilling over into a general condemnation of everything that can be tied to it, however vaguely and irrationally is not only stupid but also dishonest.

 

[koshergrl]

Monster.

 

[Liability]

It is not surprising at all that in the face of that compelling OP, rderp cannot address the actual topic.

Instead, ploddingly, predictably and untruthfully, rderp resorts to his stereotyped views of the notions of Republicanism and conservatism.

rderp does not have the integrity to simply say that an "after-birth abortion" is murder.

And it is not even honestly named as far as it goes anyway. It is not the abortion of afterbirth.

It is the alleged "abortion" of a child who has already been born.

It would be a post-birth (alleged) abortion. And that is what is known as infanticide or murder.

Period.

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, it's not even abortion. It's just murder.

 

[Liability]

Actually, it's not even abortion. It's just murder.

I know. I just said that, in fact.

 

[Liability]

And our President -- on this topic -- is a liar and a scumbag:

Links to Barack Obama’s votes on Illinois’ Born Alive Infant Protection Act - Jill Stanek

 

[Ernie S.]

I can see instances where withholding heroic measures would be justified, but not outright killing and certainly not "for the well being of the family as suggested in the OP.

Well, I disagree with a lot of what the OP says, too, as I said in my post earlier, which PC mined for more flame-bait and otherwise ignored. I would agree that the circumstances in which infanticide would be acceptable are EXTREMELY rare and limited, and I have the same opinion about late-term abortion, which in my thinking amounts to the same thing as infanticide, since a fetus right before birth is really just about as developed as a newborn, with a fully-functioning brain and everything. Except, as I said, when it has a medical condition that turns it into a vegetable.

There's really no need to allow infanticide "for the good of the family" as long as we allow early-pregnancy abortion. If abortion is legal in the first trimester at least, there's plenty of opportunity for any responsible pregnant woman to terminate the pregnancy, and no excuse for making that decision in later pregnancy or after the baby is born. In the ancient world, infanticide was practiced for the same reasons abortion is now, but that's because the primitive medicine back then didn't allow safe abortion. We are not under similar constraints. So I think that's a stupid idea.

On the other hand, I also think making important decisions by jerking knees and foaming at the mouth is even stupider. And using the word "infanticide" as a push-button to provoke an emotional reaction spilling over into a general condemnation of everything that can be tied to it, however vaguely and irrationally is not only stupid but also dishonest.

You're entitled to your perspective. Mine differs. I see the left pushing the envelope from what I consider unacceptable to horribly perverted. This show, left unchecked, the left is willing to go. Hopefully it will wake up those that are ambivalent.

 

[BluePhantom]

Well I read their full report and I will include the link below. One thing to keep in mind is that the Journal of Medical Ethics is an international organization and the authors of the report are Australian and represent the University of Melbourne, so this has no real application to the United States because of the language of our constitution. At the moment of birth a child has all the rights of a United States citizen so there's simply no way that a law like this would ever survive through the SCOTUS.

But a couple things do jump out at me:

1) This is a perfect example of how people can use logical arguments to morally justify just about anything they want to do. Unfortunately, they base much of their argument upon the definition of a "person" as: "...an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her." Well, that definition may be recognized in Australia, but not in the United States, that I am aware of, and if that definition is not accepted then the whole argument falls apart. Regardless, tactics that attempt to justify harming another living human being and defining murder as morally acceptable is the exact same kind of arguments made by Adolph Hitler, Slobodan Milosevic, etc.

2) To Dragon's point of: in extreme cases it may be moral to kill a newborn (paraphrased), it's irrelevant. No matter what the condition of the child, if it was born alive on American soil it is legally a United States citizen and even the most humane and sympathetic termination would be murder.

I have to agree with PC on this one.



http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

 

[BluePhantom]

It is not surprising at all that in the face of that compelling OP, rderp cannot address the actual topic.

Instead, ploddingly, predictably and untruthfully, rderp resorts to his stereotyped views of the notions of Republicanism and conservatism.

rderp does not have the integrity to simply say that an "after-birth abortion" is murder.

And it is not even honestly named as far as it goes anyway. It is not the abortion of afterbirth.

It is the alleged "abortion" of a child who has already been born.

It would be a post-birth (alleged) abortion. And that is what is known as infanticide or murder.

Period.

Well I think what we are seeing here is evidence that rDean would rather advocate murder than speak against the Democratic Party.

 

[Liability]

It is not surprising at all that in the face of that compelling OP, rderp cannot address the actual topic.

Instead, ploddingly, predictably and untruthfully, rderp resorts to his stereotyped views of the notions of Republicanism and conservatism.

rderp does not have the integrity to simply say that an "after-birth abortion" is murder.

And it is not even honestly named as far as it goes anyway. It is not the abortion of afterbirth.

It is the alleged "abortion" of a child who has already been born.

It would be a post-birth (alleged) abortion. And that is what is known as infanticide or murder.

Period.

Well I think what we are seeing here is evidence that rDean would rather advocate murder than speak against the Democratic Party.

Absolutely.

So either rderp is so lacking in basic morality that he honestly doesn't find infanticide offensive OR he can't bring himself to say so if it means having to be seen as "disloyal" to The One.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well I read their full report and I will include the link below. One thing to keep in mind is that the Journal of Medical Ethics is an international organization and the authors of the report are Australian and represent the University of Melbourne, so this has no real application to the United States because of the language of our constitution. At the moment of birth a child has all the rights of a United States citizen so there's simply no way that a law like this would ever survive through the SCOTUS.

But a couple things do jump out at me:

1) This is a perfect example of how people can use logical arguments to morally justify just about anything they want to do. Unfortunately, they base much of their argument upon the definition of a "person" as: "...an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her." Well, that definition may be recognized in Australia, but not in the United States, that I am aware of, and if that definition is not accepted then the whole argument falls apart. Regardless, tactics that attempt to justify harming another living human being and defining murder as morally acceptable is the exact same kind of arguments made by Adolph Hitler, Slobodan Milosevic, etc.

2) To Dragon's point of: in extreme cases it may be moral to kill a newborn (paraphrased), it's irrelevant. No matter what the condition of the child, if it was born alive on American soil it is legally a United States citizen and even the most humane and sympathetic termination would be murder.

I have to agree with PC on this one.



After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

"...so this has no real application to the United States...."

Not so.


1. In 1999, Peter Singer, a former professor at Australia’s Monash University, became the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the Princeton University Center for Human Values. At Princeton, Singer is molding and shaping the views of future leaders in medicine, law, education and business..... In a 1983 article, Singer negatively compared the value of a handicapped newborn with that of a pig...
Assisted Suicide: Not for Adults Only? | Patients Rights Council

a. Singer was named an adviser to the panel that designed ObamaCare

2. “Communitarianism emerged in the 1980s as a response to the limits of liberal theory and practice. Its dominant themes are that individual rights need to be balanced with social responsibilities, and that autonomous selves do not exist in isolation, but are shaped by the values and culture of communities…The critique of one-sided emphasis on rights has been key to defining communitarianism…"Rights talk" thus corrupts our political discourse, and is used to trump genuine conversation, public deliberation, and practical compromise…rights need to be seen in a more balanced framework, and that the U.S. would benefit by a temporary moratorium on the manufacture of new rights.
While a few communitarians have developed refined institutional analyses to match their critiques—one thinks of liberal-communitarian Ezekiel Emanuel's very interesting proposals on health care…”
CPN - Tools

a. “Another key administration figure… is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor in the Office of Management and Budget and brother of Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staff…”is one of those responsible for inserting into the “healthcare bill” the ideas that we no longer should have rights, such as determining what care we can buy, or how long we should live, and doctors should no longer look to the Hippocratic Oath, and the particular patient, but neglect the patient in the interests of ‘social justice,’ and the society as a whole.
CPN - Tools


Do you understand the euphemism "practical compromise"....?



This is Obama's Brave New World....
... ready or not.