Um... Holy F***...

Cancel 2016.2

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

They argued: “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.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
Click to expand...

Wow... now where have we heard arguments like that before?

The authors therefore concluded 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”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.
Click to expand...

And here we go... trying to get the phrasing to 'sound better' so that they don't come off as sociopathic lunatics. Very familiar to what happened when pro-abortion was rephrased 'pro-choice'

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “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.”

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”
Click to expand...

This guy is fucking delusional. He has the nerve to proclaim that it is opponents that are the ones that cause it to lead to lynching and genocide? he talks about it being ok to murder an infant... wow... fucking wow...
 
I'm actually ill when I read the argument when the argument is used for fetuses... I don't want to read any more of this. This thing making this argument is clearly lacking the necessary components of humanity to be named a person and therefore is open for an "after-birth abortion". It's even one step further than Apple who thinks that now that you can smell it then it is real...
 
Darla said:
It interests me the things men concern themselves with during this particular time. It interests me a great deal.
Click to expand...

I was mainly into football and "Top Chef," but both just ended. I still have Walking Dead, and I'm starting to get into "The Voice."
 
It is interesting that somebody would blow it off. Sorry about that SF... Maybe I should move the posts.
 
Superfreak said:
Take your TV show crap to another thread please. Don't derail this just because you don't like the topic.
Click to expand...

Derailing was my fault, but I didn't really do it on purpose. I actually don't like the topic, at all. To me, it's as extreme a position as someone on the other end of the spectrum saying that birth control kills babies, or something like that. It's an opinion not even worth discussing.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

They argued: “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.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
Click to expand...

Wow... now where have we heard arguments like that before?

The authors therefore concluded 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”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.
Click to expand...


And here we go... trying to get the phrasing to 'sound better' so that they don't come off as sociopathic lunatics. Very familiar to what happened when pro-abortion was rephrased 'pro-choice'

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “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.”

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”
Click to expand...

This guy is fucking delusional. He has the nerve to proclaim that it is opponents that are the ones that cause it to lead to lynching and genocide? he talks about it being ok to murder an infant... wow... fucking wow...

and now... back to the topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top