More and more college students are ok with killing children up to 5 years old.

[QuickHitCurepon]

When people call this abortion it's nothing more than a transparent attempt to demonize pro-choice factions by conflating it with the ethics of euthanasia. The two are rather different in my opinion. Once a baby is born - there is no issue of the rights a woman has to her own body involved. It's not abortion.

The many times I saw it argued by the left, it was clearly presented that way in an abortion discussion.

I've never seen abortion conflated with euthanasia. Maybe by some, but it's not a mainstream left or pro-choice position.

Who said it was mainstream and I don't believe it is a trend either, but obviously there are a small number who are serious about advancing this position as abortion.

It's a trend..that is gathering momentum.

Trend does not imply that the majority engage in it..but they will.

please. cite an example.

The only ones I had heard of before this were on xxxxx. That forum is for members only and frowns deeply upon sharing forum content elsewhere.

mod note - can't mention other forums...sorry

 

[Coyote]

When people call this abortion it's nothing more than a transparent attempt to demonize pro-choice factions by conflating it with the ethics of euthanasia. The two are rather different in my opinion. Once a baby is born - there is no issue of the rights a woman has to her own body involved. It's not abortion.

The many times I saw it argued by the left, it was clearly presented that way in an abortion discussion.

I've never seen abortion conflated with euthanasia. Maybe by some, but it's not a mainstream left or pro-choice position.

Who said it was mainstream and I don't believe it is a trend either, but obviously there are a small number who are serious about advancing this position as abortion.

It's a trend..that is gathering momentum.

Trend does not imply that the majority engage in it..but they will.

Seriously doubtful.

There are those who feel that if abortion came down to the life of the mother or the baby the mother should be allowed to die. I don't see that ever becoming a "trend" either.

 

[ogibillm]

I did cite an example. The OP provides the example.

i'm sorry, but one is not a trend

 

[westwall]

I decided to see what the actual Journal referenced had on the subject and I must confess it is a little troubling. That medical professionals and ethicists can actively pursue this topic is more than a little concerning.

Abstract
The argument advanced by Giubilini and Minerva is an important one, but it suffers from some shortcomings. I briefly criticise their reasoning and method and argue that after birth abortion should be limited largely to infants with disabilities. My argument is based not on solid scientific evidence or cold rational reasoning but on intuition, something that has long been discounted as irrelevant in biomedical discourse. I end with a recommendation to all of us: in order to make a change, one should not only choose one’s battles, but also one’s weapon and mode of attack.

After-birth abortion the intuition argument -- Lederman 39 5 e5 -- Journal of Medical Ethics

Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
After-birth abortion why should the baby live -- Giubilini and Minerva 39 5 261 -- Journal of Medical Ethics




Here is the link to the search. There are pages of them....
Search Results

 

[koshergrl]

Obviously, there are people in this thread who have serious "ostrich head in the sand" syndrome.

 

[ogibillm]

Obviously, there are people in this thread who have serious "ostrich head in the sand" syndrome.

and some with chicken little syndrome.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, it's so foolish to object to the murder of children. So quaint and silly.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Suddenly, I have a craving for baby back ribs.

 

[Carla_Danger]

That also looks pretty tasty!

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

So it's "post-abortion"? That's a euphemism for infanticide, for murder? A 4 year-old can giggle at your jokes, and many can read better than your average democrat adult, and they can give you big hugs and tell you they love you. Not enough cognition going on there? How would they be dispatched? Baseball bats? Strangulation?

 

[Carla_Danger]

So it's "post-abortion"? That's a euphemism for infanticide, for murder? A 4 year-old can giggle at your jokes, and many can read better than your average democrat adult, and they can give you big hugs and tell you they love you. Not enough cognition going on there? How would they be dispatched? Baseball bats? Strangulation?

 

[rightwinger]

snopes.com More College Students Support Post-Birth Abortion

The article lacks a number of key credibility markers. Among crucial corroborating information missing is on which campuses purported polling might have occurred, the number of respondents espousing this shocking viewpoint, the number of college students polled, what specifically constitutes "reguarly," and the most crucially relevant portion: what specific language was used to extract this specific admission from college students asked about their support of abortion or reproductive law?

Harrington himself pointed to a single individual as evidence of this alarming "trend" favoring infanticide, and the claim relied solely on his assertion that such a conversation occurred:
Read more at snopes.com More College Students Support Post-Birth Abortion

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Yes, and if the left isn't busy promoting the murder of toddlers, they're busy getting legislation passed that'll allow them to rape toddlers before they murder them.

You are a pathetic human who came up with this crap all on his own.

Please think things through before you hit send.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I'd say more than a few! LOL!

You have proof of this?

No, please share this information -- I'm willing to bet that aside from some nut-job ultra-liberal, fem-nazi talking out of his/her/its ass -- you cannot.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

snopes.com More College Students Support Post-Birth Abortion

The article lacks a number of key credibility markers. Among crucial corroborating information missing is on which campuses purported polling might have occurred, the number of respondents espousing this shocking viewpoint, the number of college students polled, what specifically constitutes "reguarly," and the most crucially relevant portion: what specific language was used to extract this specific admission from college students asked about their support of abortion or reproductive law?

Harrington himself pointed to a single individual as evidence of this alarming "trend" favoring infanticide, and the claim relied solely on his assertion that such a conversation occurred:
Read more at snopes.com More College Students Support Post-Birth Abortion

Thanks, here -- no one who believes this crap is going to click on the link because their arm is in a sling:

The article veered immediately into "friend of a friend" territory, citing word-of-mouth claims made by anti-abortion activists who frequently demonstrate on campuses. The claims were quickly picked up by other blogs; and in the course of their travels, the anecdotes morphed into the results of a "study" about a worrisome moral decay on campuses nationwide.

The article stated:
"Anecdotal evidence by leaders of pro-life groups such as Created Equal and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust said in interviews that not only do they see more college students willing to say they support post-birth abortion, but some students even suggest children up to 4 or 5-years-old can also be killed, because they are not yet "self aware."

She cites the testimony of Mark Harrington, the director of Created Equal. Harrington said, "We encounter people who think it is morally acceptable to kill babies after birth on a regular basis at almost every campus we visit. While this viewpoint is still seen as shocking by most people, it is becoming increasingly popular."
The article lacks a number of key credibility markers. Among crucial corroborating information missing is on which campuses purported polling might have occurred, the number of respondents espousing this shocking viewpoint, the number of college students polled, what specifically constitutes "reguarly," and the most crucially relevant portion: what specific language was used to extract this specific admission from college students asked about their support of abortion or reproductive law?

Harrington himself pointed to a single individual as evidence of this alarming "trend" favoring infanticide, and the claim relied solely on his assertion that such a conversation occurred:
This is the whole problem with devaluing human life at any stage — it will naturally grow to include other groups of humans; in this case, born humans as well as preborn humans," Harrington said. " talked with one young man at the University of Minnesota who thought it was alright to kill children if they were under the age of 5 years old, as he did not consider them persons until that age."
Even if Harrington did speak with one young man at one campus who believed that children up to the age of five were not "persons," there is no evidence of any large-scale support for similar beliefs. The site also quotes anti-abortion activist Kristina Garza, who similarly claims that "a common [age] going around is 4 years old" in this purported new trend of post-birth abortion support. Garza points to 35 year old literature as the culprit inspiring college kids to embrace the philosophy:
As for the trend, Garza said there's an explanation for it. For one, the arguments put forth by Peter Singer and other philosophers who support infanticide are given as reading assignments to college students.

Singer wrote in 1979 that "human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons ... [therefore] the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."
Garza did not elaborate on why a philosophy more than three decades old would suddenly be sweeping college campuses.

The article's claims echo a 2013 media kerfuffle over students at George Mason University signing a petition to legalize "fourth trimester abortion." Pregnancy consists of three trimesters, with the bulk of abortions occurring in the first trimester. The controversy that ensued appeared to stem from intended confusion among those polled about the fictional "fourth trimester," and did not actually indicate widespread support for infanticide:
You might think that college students, a group that typically lives their lives based on a trimester calendar system, might figure out that this was a bogus petition or that "aborting" a 4th trimester baby would mean murdering a child after it had been born. But many of them were fooled by the question.

It should also be noted that, as with all petitions, some people will just sign anything to appease the petitioner. [The petitioner] also asked people to sign the petition in a very humorous, yet also deceptive, way by misrepresenting himself as an abortion supporter. But it's still a really fun video to watch.
While the 2013 "fourth trimester" abortion controversy stemmed from a deliberately misleading set of questions designed to make a political point, the article from 29 October 2014 is even less credible. No evidence is presented to support the claim that college students favor "post-birth abortions," and no public opinion polls reflect the increase of such a sentiment.

Read more at snopes.com More College Students Support Post-Birth Abortion

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

snopes.com More College Students Support Post-Birth Abortion

The article lacks a number of key credibility markers. Among crucial corroborating information missing is on which campuses purported polling might have occurred, the number of respondents espousing this shocking viewpoint, the number of college students polled, what specifically constitutes "reguarly," and the most crucially relevant portion: what specific language was used to extract this specific admission from college students asked about their support of abortion or reproductive law?

Harrington himself pointed to a single individual as evidence of this alarming "trend" favoring infanticide, and the claim relied solely on his assertion that such a conversation occurred:
Read more at snopes.com More College Students Support Post-Birth Abortion

Thanks, here -- no one who believes this crap is going to click on the link because their arm is in a sling:

The article veered immediately into "friend of a friend" territory, citing word-of-mouth claims made by anti-abortion activists who frequently demonstrate on campuses. The claims were quickly picked up by other blogs; and in the course of their travels, the anecdotes morphed into the results of a "study" about a worrisome moral decay on campuses nationwide.

The article stated:
"Anecdotal evidence by leaders of pro-life groups such as Created Equal and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust said in interviews that not only do they see more college students willing to say they support post-birth abortion, but some students even suggest children up to 4 or 5-years-old can also be killed, because they are not yet "self aware."

She cites the testimony of Mark Harrington, the director of Created Equal. Harrington said, "We encounter people who think it is morally acceptable to kill babies after birth on a regular basis at almost every campus we visit. While this viewpoint is still seen as shocking by most people, it is becoming increasingly popular."
The article lacks a number of key credibility markers. Among crucial corroborating information missing is on which campuses purported polling might have occurred, the number of respondents espousing this shocking viewpoint, the number of college students polled, what specifically constitutes "reguarly," and the most crucially relevant portion: what specific language was used to extract this specific admission from college students asked about their support of abortion or reproductive law?

Harrington himself pointed to a single individual as evidence of this alarming "trend" favoring infanticide, and the claim relied solely on his assertion that such a conversation occurred:
This is the whole problem with devaluing human life at any stage — it will naturally grow to include other groups of humans; in this case, born humans as well as preborn humans," Harrington said. " talked with one young man at the University of Minnesota who thought it was alright to kill children if they were under the age of 5 years old, as he did not consider them persons until that age."
Even if Harrington did speak with one young man at one campus who believed that children up to the age of five were not "persons," there is no evidence of any large-scale support for similar beliefs. The site also quotes anti-abortion activist Kristina Garza, who similarly claims that "a common [age] going around is 4 years old" in this purported new trend of post-birth abortion support. Garza points to 35 year old literature as the culprit inspiring college kids to embrace the philosophy:
As for the trend, Garza said there's an explanation for it. For one, the arguments put forth by Peter Singer and other philosophers who support infanticide are given as reading assignments to college students.

Singer wrote in 1979 that "human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons ... [therefore] the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."
Garza did not elaborate on why a philosophy more than three decades old would suddenly be sweeping college campuses.

The article's claims echo a 2013 media kerfuffle over students at George Mason University signing a petition to legalize "fourth trimester abortion." Pregnancy consists of three trimesters, with the bulk of abortions occurring in the first trimester. The controversy that ensued appeared to stem from intended confusion among those polled about the fictional "fourth trimester," and did not actually indicate widespread support for infanticide:
You might think that college students, a group that typically lives their lives based on a trimester calendar system, might figure out that this was a bogus petition or that "aborting" a 4th trimester baby would mean murdering a child after it had been born. But many of them were fooled by the question.

It should also be noted that, as with all petitions, some people will just sign anything to appease the petitioner. [The petitioner] also asked people to sign the petition in a very humorous, yet also deceptive, way by misrepresenting himself as an abortion supporter. But it's still a really fun video to watch.
While the 2013 "fourth trimester" abortion controversy stemmed from a deliberately misleading set of questions designed to make a political point, the article from 29 October 2014 is even less credible. No evidence is presented to support the claim that college students favor "post-birth abortions," and no public opinion polls reflect the increase of such a sentiment.

You're really an idiot, aren't you? Just because you don't want to believe inconvenient truths, doesn't make them any less true.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

You're really an idiot, aren't you? Just because you don't want to believe inconvenient truths, doesn't make them any less true.

You have proof of this? Any?

Why then, are you so willing to buy into it?

-- The idiot wants to know.

I don't/won't believe in something, if I do not think there is reason to believe it.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I'd say more than a few! LOL!

You have proof of this?

No, please share this information -- I'm willing to bet that aside from some nut-job ultra-liberal, fem-nazi talking out of his/her/its ass -- you cannot.

You want me to prove that there's more than one idiot on this forum? Okay, how about the author of this bogus thread, and everyone who read it and went into panic mode. There's a start.

 

[Carla_Danger]

snopes.com More College Students Support Post-Birth Abortion

The article lacks a number of key credibility markers. Among crucial corroborating information missing is on which campuses purported polling might have occurred, the number of respondents espousing this shocking viewpoint, the number of college students polled, what specifically constitutes "reguarly," and the most crucially relevant portion: what specific language was used to extract this specific admission from college students asked about their support of abortion or reproductive law?

Harrington himself pointed to a single individual as evidence of this alarming "trend" favoring infanticide, and the claim relied solely on his assertion that such a conversation occurred:
Read more at snopes.com More College Students Support Post-Birth Abortion

LOL's with my morning coffee!

 

[tinydancer]

We have to immediately jump on their phrase "post birth abortion".

Call it what it is .Murder. Don't let them pretty it up like they have done so many times before. Pro Choice. A woman's right to choose.

Hit it hard and fast. And nuke them with everything you've got if you run across anyone who is promoting murdering children.