Call it for what it is – MURDER.

Infantcide, assisted suicide, euthenasia, population control or whatever it is called it is still the same thing – morally reprehensible and murder.

These mongrel dogs who claim that the killing of a child after it is born is on the same order of those who seek to control populations by ‘elimination’ of ‘undesirables.’ Of course the only ones who would be immune to such rules or matters will be themselves and their children as they see themselves as the ‘enlightened elite’ who needs to cull the herds of humanity.

If people such as these ever get into power, as we have with Obama, they will unleash a horror not seen since Nazi Germany and the death camps along with such ‘notables’ as Dr Mengelle.
Do not underestimate what happens when the value of one human life is reduced to being deemed as ‘unworthy’ in any cause.

Such ideology of madness and evil quickly descends to where people are reduced to the ideology of beign ‘second class’ or ‘sub human’ people as the Nazi party thought of those who were not up to their insane ideology of the so called ‘master race.’

We have cared enough to afford a minipause.

Man these people are disgusting.
I hope people realize that this is the end result of the naturalist/atheist movement.
They cannot account for right or wrong so they deny it all together.

Funny this so called Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University is all for this. Wow that is an oxymoron if I ever seen one. They have Ethics in their name and they think it is ok to kill a baby that just was born. What the hell is that!

Unspeakably disgusting.

So Infanticide is moral?

So we are witnessing the rebirth of the discredited Eugenics movement.

C’mon, it’s not like we’d be killing “real people”, right? Right!?!?

CHART:  Selected Leading Causes of Death in the United States (2007)
http://www.twitpic.com/88gq7u/full

University of Melbourne? As in Melbourne, Australia? I’d consider it a good thing if you had to go 15,000 miles to find such a horrendous statement.

Good Lord—- If it were a puppy or kitten, the liberals would bend over backward to save it’s life by whatever means possible.

This is so beyond horrifying, it’s breathtaking. But we had to see this coming. This is the end result of abortion on demand. But will it be the end? No. The next movement will be to be able to murder a child up to two years old if you decide you don’t want it after all. Ultimately..no one may be safe..satan must love all this. Abortion..an idea born in Hell.

Can I do that with the wife I don’t like?

Then they aren’t ethicists. They’re antiethicist misanthropes.

LMAO!

Bumpersticker I saw several years ago in Montery, CA, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought: Be a hero, Save a whale, Save a baby, Go to jail.

wow, just wow.

Now I am only relaying what I was told, so don’t shoot the messenger here. But according to Jewish belief, a baby is not a life, until 2 years after birth. Now that was told to me by an agnostic Jewish Lawyer I know… so consider the source. But that might explain a lack of resistance to this by the Jewish community if this is indeed true. If so, it’s time to explain to them why G-d views us in our mother’s womb with such love and attention. And why interfering with G-d act of creation is against nature and nature’s G-d. Perhaps if G-d views us as special… our birth mothers should also. 

Were I to be on a jury deciding on the fate of a person who killed either of these two “ethicists” and who claimed that he acted to prevent a murder of a baby, I would stand and vote to acquit.  These folks are very vile.

Pro-”after-birth abortion”. Anti-”capital punishment”? Wait… 

http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm

gives a slightly different opinion

Actually, even the title is all wrong..a person with real ethics does not try to reason away the right to an innocent human life. 

Of course they justify it the word is out Obama was the only Senator who voted for killing of a baby born alive ,so now they have to justify it ..Not only that but wake up people all the people this President surrounds himself hate babies..Look at the Science czar Holdren he actually advocates it..he also thinks children from large families are stupider..

Then we have all those Chinese and Indian female infants being murdered, how did this “Something Evil This Way Comes” been allowed to take over the world? We have learned nothing from our world’s history.

Unborn babies, born children, active toddlers, troubled teens – do we just continue the killing?  Then we are surprised with school shootings and the rise in suicides!  What happened to the respect and love for life??  Our world needs so much prayer!

Well there is another step to this sort of approach. Relation-back abortion. Just find someone that annoys you some, and tell them that records indicate that they should have been aborted on or about the day of their birth and that the Government is here to rectify that oversight. Trouble for me is that I feel that they are looking my way, with that theory in mind.

Is it too late for Alberto Giubilini’s parents to practice “after-birth abortion”?

Imagine you’re in the maternity ward and having the lady next to you having given birth and when she or the Dad see’s their child and say, “Oh I don’t think so… Dr. will you please take care of this child and I don’t want it… it’s”… a girl or it’s malformed or whatever murderous excuse a person can make. But I would think that afterbirth the Dad should be able to intervene and take the child away from this woman if the baby is alive and not in an immediate impending life threatening situation. But this could also open a pandora’s box with now the father wanting to murder the child also. 

Isn’t this the way the Third Reich justified the Holocaust?  I am pretty sure this is how it started……

History repeats itself, we are doomed to relive Germany’s view of the worthiness of some to live during Nazi Rule if we don’t standup now against the liberal left and their plans for our world..

I am an atheist, and in no way of supporting this, i believe in the right of self preservation and believing in one’s self. Not a deity. We make our choices, we have to deal with what the outcome is. Please keep that in mind. I have two annoying boys who I love more than anything and would steal, kill, lie, cheat…basically anything to ensure their safety and comfort. 

I would think that there would have to be at least no more than 2 years limitation to this murderous action. But can you imagine all the post-partem desperate women getting rid of their children and the law not able to stop them? Or if those Dad’s who shake their baby to death not being able to be prosecuted. Of course the law could be hypocritical and say… you’re still a murder because the State didn’t murder the child.

Liberalism is a mental illness. Are these clowns really serious? Kill a child because it’s inconvenient, what evil sickness do these people suffer from other than liberalism? I don’t like hating but I hate liberals because they are a sick bunch.

We have been desensitized all these years to think that it isn’t a baby. So it shouldn’t surprise people when they are now killing the poor baby after it is born. Look at how it is almost acceptable if a mother kills her baby after birth because of post p. depression. The worth of a baby or child is less than it was years ago.
This is murder and people should be outraged. God helps us all. 

Sometimes the term “ethics,” in a collegiate setting, refers to the study of all ethical situations, not just a set of moral ideals. 

Although in this case, given the “Applied” in their name, I’m not sure that’s relevant. :-/

Hasn’t there already been some senator or representative who’s tried to get a similar bill passed here in the United States for the past several years? folks, it’s not coming – it’s here.

This so sick! Anyone who is not out raged by this should be given the opportunity to exchange places with the newborn………..weather they like it or not… after all the newborn has no chice either!

Why are you leaving out the “o” in God?  It makes no sense to me.   Please enligten.

Just wondering what Peta thinks about this. They go through great lengths to save animals. I would like to see them voice their opinions on this murder. I think it is a lot more important to save humans first. 

So I suppose the line of reasoning is that since it is legal to take a life IN the womb, why not outside the womb? Now they have to find an age where the act is no longer considered “abortion” but infanticide. UN-believable. Creating a super race? Insuring “choice”? This is ridiculous and frightening. The next step is when to “extinguish” life in the later years when they become a burden on the family. Think I’m kidding? The Health Care Reform signed into law is already recommending reduced intervention for certain elder health issues. OH YES IT IS – it is in there.

He was the only senator that voted to continue the procedure that kills a baby after a botched abortion. This occurred after a baby was still alive after being aborted and they put it in a closet to die. The other senators said this should never happen again. But Obama said it was ok.
We should have known then what kind of person he is.

Back in 61 over in Kenya would have been a good time to have tried this out.  

killing newbornes…. what will the libs stoop to now…. Godless heathens

 Can you say Hypocrite?  Every time there is an execution of a Murderer, you will find a gaggle of Lefties at the Prison Gate demonstrating to SAVE the condemned because He/she could be innocent or had a bad childhood or what ever..

But just try to talk about Abortion and these same people will justify the killing of the most innocent of all humans without a trial, legal representation nor even a hearing or chance of a stay of execution…  And the means of death is to be torn limb from limb or having your brains sucked out, or a sharp instrument jabbed into the base of the scull and your brains scrambled.. 

Can you imagine the outcry if this was the mode of execution of the condemned murder…  Tie each of their legs and arms to vehicles and all peel out in different directions tearing the condemned apart… Wow,  what an outcry we would hear..  But not so for the innocent life torn a piece at a time from the womb..  And this goes on by the THOUSANDS each week…

 Jewish people believe it’s wrong to use the entire name of God, so they leave out the “o” so as not to profane His name. (I believe this is correct- my apologies if I’m wrong.)

When you leave God out of the picture, life is no longer sacred, and people revert to the pagan habit of leaving unwanted infants to die.

Maybe these two are disciples of an Australian professor named King who had the idea that children can be killed up until they are two or three years old.  Is this ethics???? Is this morality????

My kids went to school with a little boy who was a “botched” abortion.  He’s a sweet little guy  – the depths of wickedness the human heart can go to when, the only our own needs and wants matter and when God and His law of love is ejected.

Just the fact that this subject matter is out there for discussion tells me again that the end times are surely upon us. I don’t believe God would allow this to happen. We must cleanse our minds and souls. Love God and neighbor and seek His will. This is all that matters

So partial birth abortion is not evil enough? This is flat out MURDER! Changing the definition or politically correctizing a word doesn’t change a thing. We are back to what the word “IS” is and it is ludicrous at best! We need to stop this madness!

It seems to me that the Agenda 21 plan to decrease the population by 85% to cut back on the use of our natural resources has taken another twist…

So here is an interesting argument that ought to be thrown right back at them.  How about we take everyone that puts their hand out and takes food stamps, welfare checks, govt assistance, or other handouts (including those that panhandle on the streets) and “abort” them?  Why?  Because they are “an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care” (using their own words of course).
If we pushed that thru then we would not be in the economic mess that we are currently going thru because we could take everyone that comes and asks for handouts, READ: ENTITLEMENTS, and use this criteria to judge them.  We would probably eliminate most of the burden on society and probably eliminate the need for abortion clinics altogether.
Simplest of solutions!

I’m not saying that actual atheists are immoral people. Most of the ones I’ve met are very kind and generous people. I’m just saying atheism/naturalism in itself eliminates right and wrong.

For a perspective of population control in our country and the history of eugenics , watch maafa 21 on u tube.

This is horrible.  Are they going to tell us that the infants don’t feel pain the way they tried about the fetus with the abortion?

Perhaps, as they continue to apply their erudite thinking to the problem, they will recognize that post-birth abortions might best be applied to those infants ages 19-25 who have been unable to develop cognitive abilities of their own, and are limited to parroting anything someone spews through a bull horn.  I’m sure you’ve seen these malformed (older) infants …. they can frequently be found nesting and defecating in public parks.  Perhaps they could just spray?

 Even Karl Marx thought everyone needs to earn their keep.  Not sure what his thoughts on disabilty were.

Glenn,  I could support it if we were talking about some adults!  Chuckie Schummer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and many others would get my recommendation for this procedure.

 First it’s a covered benefit and then they can mandate birth control. But who gets to procreate?  We are going backwards in time in many ways. And think about obamacare and the selective care that will be regulated.

thats funny I always said that… If we went into the Vets office and said our dog got out and got pregnant… we would get a lecture about how irresponsible we were and by no means nessasary would they consider an abortion for your dog…you would be considered a Ted Bundy type of mental case murdering innocent puppies… but with human life there is a total different stance, it sick! but mostly its SAD!!!

But then, who would vote democrat? 

I’ve read the actual article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics and
I must say, it seems to have been written with just enough intellectual
seriousness to purposely demonstrate the absurdity of following the typical “Sanger”
argument to its logical conclusion. In other words, I believe the authors meant
to offer an argument “reductio ad absurdum” simply to prove the point that
arguments based on Sanger-esk logic are absurd.

The two authors may even have intended to remind us that this is just how it
began in Nazi Germany—with some elitist intellectual making such an argument in
order to serves the greater common good. In fact, I often craft an argument
like this to demonstrate to my students how dangerous an idea can be if
followed to its logical conclusion. Of course they dismiss its possibility in
contemporary society. So these two ethicists have done me a favor by providing me
intellectual corroboration, so to speak.

I often use controversial topics like abortion to investigate the potential absurdity
of a variety of argument types, even valid ones. For causal arguments, I begin
with Steven D. Levitt’s argument (in Freakonomics) that increased abortion rates
have led to lower crimes rates. Then I get the students to follow a chain of arguments
to their logical conclusion. That provides an opportunity to look at comments made
by Sanger herself (in her 1957 interview with Mike Wallace), legislative language
from bills such as FOCA, court opinions such as Casey v. Planned Parenthood, statements
from organizations such as NARAL, and transcripts of floor statements made by
then Illinois State Senator Barak Obama (in his opposition to Illinois’ version
of the BAIPA). You should see the collective look on my students’ faces when
they realize that reproductive rights isn’t really about exercising the right
to privacy (as they’ve been taught was argued in Roe v. Wade). They look as if
they‘d just been told Santa doesn’t exist. Being able to end the exercise with this
article (rather than my own) should be the coup de grace.

I often tell my students that my job isn’t impress my opinion on them, but
to teach them how to arrive at their own. In fact, they rarely become aware of
what my opinion is. But adhering to the constraint of intellectual honesty makes teaching
all the more gratifying, especially when I can undo least some of the damage
done to students by my Marxist and post-structural feminist colleagues.

It absolutely astonishes me that people will stop at nothing to replace “personal responsibility” with “solutions.” 

In this particular case, how long is the “post-birth abortion” extending to?  With reasonable argument I am certain I could convince one “ethicist” that the other is mentally no more than a fetus (limited brainpower)…and with that would they be able to eradicate the other? 

Just a thought.

I’m afraid that you made BreakerTheGreat’s point.  As an atheist you see no problem with harming others, as long as it is in your personal best interest. 

 Furthermore, using their other arguments, couldn’t we counterpoint that they are placing an undue amount of pain on OUR society by their existance?

This is an evil concept, but it’s not a new concept, Dr. Sanger of Princeton has been advocating Infanticide up to the age of 18 months (he teaches Bio ethics at Princeton). Through out history people have been murdering their own children, The Carthaginians would burn their children while still living in large Braziers, while burning the face muscles would always contract the same and they called it the “Laughing baby”. This practice started as a sacrifice, but even in times of prosperity they continued the practice stating it was better not to bring so many children into the world, that it was better for them (the babies) and their society. As gruesome as this sounds, it appears even with all our advancements there are some that still have not learned the majesty of life given to us by our Creator. The old adage, the more things change the more they stay the same seems appropriate in this awe full condition in the human psyche. May this Nation find God, before Gods full wrath of judgement finds us.

My question is: what is the time limit for a “post birth abortion”?  1 year, 5 years, 20 or 30 years, and who should be “post birth aborted”?  The infirm, the old, non belivers, conservatives, tea party members, christians and any body else?  This looks like, feels like, and smells like what happened before as the basis for past and present genocides. 

Thankyou, Jesus . You taught us how to live.

liberals general reaction to anything:

Where do these freak professors come from?  A baby is a baby,
is a baby, is a baby.  Inside or outside a woman’s womb!
This entire educational system all around the world needs a
drastic change.  If I had a college age student, I would not pay
to help them go to one of these so-called universities.
Without life we are all nothing.  There is life in every plant,
ocean, trees, etc. and without life we are already seeing the
destruction of all of the world economies.  There are not
enough people to help the next generation.
What a disgusting world we live in.

Babies today and adults and chronicall ill patients of all ages to follow.  Preparation for Obamacare’s rationing and denial of services based upon cost vs. pts productivity.  God save our Nation!!  Please pray that Americans will stand up for morals and defeat those in office who support these immoral act.

What do you expect from the same ”progressives” that want jail time for people that destroy and eagle’s egg….but call partial birth abortion providers “heroes of women’s rights”?  Same old song and dance folks. And before people get twisty about lumping obummer in with this mentaility, please remember that he refused to sign a law in IL that protected survivors of abortion (they just toss them into the trash).  Godless….only word for it.  

Call it the cotton candy method — who cares.  What the fact of the action states is that IT IS MURDER.  I’m still shocked that partial birth abortions were even thought of, much less approved.  Now this?  I think I’ll move to the mountains where I won’t be subjected to such insanity.

Indeed – to these mongrels in the story they care nothing for human life. I wonder what they would say if one of Obama’s death panels said “time to go into the night comrad…”

God bless you.

Is this sad or what?

okay here goes:  take a photo of those who are for Partial Birth Abortion and put a drawing of a needle in the back of their necks, and say “SUCK YOURS INSTEAD”.  I wanted to do that for so long, to show that how about the Pro-aborts feel what it’s like to kill a baby, and to experience it.  Hey, can  we now kill the President cause we wish he wasn’t our president too? I mean if we don’t like what he’s done he had plenty of time to do better, huh? So how about giving his same medicine back to him, like “feel This, Bucko.”  

Your students are both fortunate and Blessed to have an intellect  like you to instruct them

What kind of world do we live in?
The only thing important to sooooo many people is having a good
time and the hell with what they consider as incumbrances,  their
own children. 
I just want to cry when I read something like what these professor
murderers are advocating.

This is not the first time such a thing has been advocated. Two college professors here in the U.S.A. recommended several years ago that it be legal to “abort” a baby up to two months after birth. I can’t remember where the were located, but as I remember one was at the University of Colorado and the other at some college in California or maybe it was Columbia.

Wow. Don’t they know that pro-lifers were only kidding when they made up the story about the doctor who suggested getting rid of the baby in the arms of the mother seeking an abortion? Seriously, I agree with tulsachick, if it were a puppy or kitten… Hey as long as we’re playing around with names, why don’t we stop calling them ‘fetus’ or ‘child’ and start calling them puppies and kittens!

While such a claim is unlikely to gather support it must be remembered that these ethical philosophers are neither performing such acts nor are they forcing others to do so. They are merely speaking about the ethical issues. The argument has been made before by Peter Singer, who wrote that the life of a newborn baby or a very young infant is not necessarily sacred to the point where they should be kept alive despite their suffering from a severely debilitating disease. Think about it this way: if the parents know that their child is in great pain and that there is little to no chance that the child’s quality of life will ever improve, why is it morally correct to force the child to live (as that is what is being done .. if the child cannot choose whether to die then it follows that he or she cannot also choose to live).

As ever, Beck has (perhaps deliberately) missed the point and misled his listeners. This is not to say that such a practice as ‘post-birth abortion’ is morally correct, merely that there are points to be made regarding whether we should force an infant to suffer simply because we want them to live. It’s got nothing at all to do with whether the parents ‘like the baby’.

On a more general topic, it is interesting that despite having such a large listenership Beck still does not accept the responsibility of keeping himself informed as to what is actually happening in the world.

Lastly, if a parent believes that their newly born child should remain alive (for whatever reason) then it is paramount that there is a healthcare system that can see to his or her needs for the rest of their lives. This is currently lacking in the US. Before we start proselytising as to who should live and who should die we must see to it that anyone who lives can do so in good health without financial worry. Hidden in the above post is an implict argument for national healthcare reform that leaves no-one behind. After all, poor people have disabled children too.

Haven’t you heard about the Liberal hypocrisy, deceit, lies and distortions with PETA, the animal-rights, anti-human activist group?

It appears that over 90% of the animals in their care have died.

Someone needs to read the Book of Revelation to these fools——there, they will find their mentor, the antichrist—-good luck with him—-he will be your absolute nightmare and you’ll be looking around for someone to help you    but the only help will be my Lord and Saviour, Christ Jesus, who, because of people like these fools, help set up the crucifiction—-but Praise God, thank God my Lord “is” alive and sitted at the right hand of the Father—-Romans 1:22 has them pegged down real well—”Professing themseves to be wise, they became fools”

 I take it you’ve never taken a Philosophy of Ethics course. Ethicists discuss and argue about ethics but don’t prescribe how people should act (this is how they can talk about such sensitive subjects as abortion with detail and clarity). Just because something doesn’t fit in with your moral outlook doesn’t mean it should not be discussed. It’s quite likely that most ethicists will end up with the same opinions as you (the examples given above are not to be taken as representative of all ethicists) but they will have arrived at theirs through careful thought about the matter at hand. This is not to say that you have not, but rather that mere mortals such as you and I have more emotional responses to these subjects and it is difficult to work out the finer points (for example, the question of what constitutes ‘life’ when we are talking about whether abortion itself can be justified).

How can a philosopher of ethics be ‘anti-ethical’? Isn’t that a bit like a medical doctor being opposed to medicinal treatment?

……and we can’t put a pedophile child murderer on death row to death….too “inhumane”

Hmmm… so… they think it is ok to kill your kid.  (Just like an abortion.)  What age is ok?  2? 15? 45?

 So by your logic an atheist doesn’t care about life? Would you mind saying that in public to the countless parents who don’t believe in God or follow organized religion? Would you mind telling them that they don’t care about the life of their child?

We do not need God in order to live moral lives. Those who are religious find inspiration from the Bible and the teachings and acts of Jesus. Those who are not religious use their good judgment (which pre-dates Christianity).

Depraved elites like Peter Singer have been advocating allowing such crimes against young humanity with impunity for years and that is the sort of influence that is unfortunately shaping the next generation in colleges across the land.  We need to get back to understanding the basic biological fact that a distinct human life, the likes of whom has never existed before and will never be again, came into being at the very moment of conception and that life with great potential deserves as much protection as any other stage of human development is provided in our nation.  Since the Roe decision we have seen a progressive devaluing of human life from the attempts at cloning to allowing for assisted suicide, which opens the door to euthanasia such as they have had in the Netherlands for decades.  America was founded a distinctly Christian nation so it behooves us to keep in mind that we’re told in Proverbs 6:16-17 that God hates hands that shed innocent blood.  It is important to elect candidates from the party of life this November who would help America steer back to the rightward direction wherein life is more greatly respected and protected.  Pray for a change back to moral as well as fiscal sanity!

Aren’t they working toward George Bernard Shaw’s version of baby killing?  I believe he said it was alright to murder children up to 3 years old, for the same reasons used by these “ethicists.”  It really isn’t a new idea at all. The abortion issue is, and always has been a slippery slope.

If a child cannot choose to die it cannot choose to live?

Life and death are not relative. Life must be held above death. Who are we to decide someone’s quality of life?

It’s already taken us down the slippery slope into the cold-blooded murdering of the disabled and soon through Obamacare to senior citizens unless that monstrosity is appropriately overturned by the so-far AWOL Supreme Court.  You might be familiar with the cases of Terry Schiavo and Hugh Finn, just a few of the more high-profile people who have been starved and dehydrated to death in the wealthiest nation on earth – what a criminal DISGRACE!

What’s really sad is in other parts of the world, when a woman is expecting it’s consindered a blessing from God, but in America it’s become a curse.  And now some want the baby killed outside the womb.  I guess a baby really isn’t a human until when 1, 2, 7 how about 10 years old.  This happens and God kills America.  A curse will come on America that nothing like it has ever seen before.

Who said the child was suffering?Down’ Syndrome is not painful. We releive pain and allow natual death. First you pick the weak ones, then the dumb ones, then the ones with blue eyes………

 There is a marked difference between this and the justifcation for genocide, namely that the practice of ‘post-birth abortion’ is not forced upon everyone. I accept that it is forced upon one person, namly the child. However, we are not talking about the killing of a child that we simply do not want; rather, we are trying to talk about the very difficult and sensitive matter of whether we should force a child who is experiencing great pain to bear that pain on the basis of our idea about the sanctity of life.

I consider the idea of sanctity of life to be of great importance. In fact, it is one of the finest examples of human compassion. However, why do we never talk about ‘quality of life’? Quality of life is not different from life itself and why should we be so willing to defend the latter and not pay much, if any, attention to the former?

 So you’re ok with murder if it is committed against someone you don’t like?

Anybody else here ever hear of Jonathan Swift?  I have the feeling this is merely a modest proposal

Especially America, moving at breakneck speed toward a Logan’s Run and Soylent Green style society whereby everyone is eliminated around the age of thirty and human beings become part of the food chain.  Sound too wild to be true?  Keep in mind that the submarine was nothing more than a science fiction dream until a story by H. G. Wells proposed the possibilities thereof – at the rate Obama is going, no life is safe unless you happen to be a member of his inner circle of influence.  

The claim that atheists act only out of selfishness is unfounded. Would you be willing to claim that atheist parents care only about themselves and not their child? Would you be willing to tell them? I do not believe in God, nor do I believe that God (or, for that matter, any deity) exists. However, if you wish to argue that I am a purely selfish person – for this reason alone – then please try. Meanwhile I will donate to charity, volunteer whenever I can and hand in found wallets to the police without having taken any of the money left inside. I’ll carry on doing all these ‘selfish’ activities regardless of what you have to say.

 He also worked extremely hard to push through legislation that would allow poorer Americans access to good quality healthcare. This is also the kind of person he is.

Has this actually happened to you? In fact, a vet would have no problem with this (and a proper Liberal would respect your right to make and carry out whatever choice you consider to be right).

I was just thinking, could this Idea go further that what these people really want. I mean since these babies or things aren’t really yet viable humans. Why not use them for experiments, instead of using monkeys or rats, why not use these things (babies) instead.  Whats the diff they were going to be killed anyway so why not experiment with them?

Kinda like Nazi doctors.   Horrible read if you want to know what they did. 

This is just disgusting.

Wanna hear something funny.  Some of the same Vegans that protest and tell kids that Mcdonadls Killed chicken Little for their Mc Nuggets.  Are the same people who rally for pro choice.

It’s like they take a small piece at a time. So you won’t see the whole picture.

Heil Hitler will be the mantra soon.

 We have not been ‘desensitized’ in the way you claim. If this were the case then there would be no need for philosophers – or, for that matter, anyone – to debate these topics. It would simply be done and forgotten about. As outraged as you may be by this article it does not grant you the right to exaggerate the state of our society.

Also, what do you know about postpartum depression? Have you suffered from it? Do you know anyone who has? If the answer to either of these questions is ‘yes’ then you will be aware of quite how debilitating it is for the mother. However, if the answer is ‘no’ then perhaps a little reading is called for on your part.

No way! The mantra will be Heil Obama! (But, no real difference, what’s in a name?)

According
to documents obtained from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, PETA killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care in 2011. PETA
recently raised money off a euthanized cat while it killed 99 percent of cats
in its own care in 2011.

Welcome to the left.

 Do you think that such a person should be allowed to die? I would argue that if we want to see someone who has committed this act suffer then we should keep them alive into old age as their body begins to deteriorate. They lose their sight, their hearing, their ability to control their bodily functions; on top of this all, they lose their mind. Can you truly think of a worse suffering than this?

And if someone were to consider it right to kill liberals… Would they respect that?

LINE IN THE SAND.  babies ABORTED IN 2ND AND THIRD TRIMESTER and after birth NEVER!

this is exactly the same as blacks not considered “people” during slavery.

my niece was born with CP, yes she experiences pain, she openly admits that some time her pain is terrible. But ask her if she wished her Mother had aborted her or killed her and her answer is a resounding No.  Alalstair by trying to justify your position you are agreeing to let another to be judge, jury , and executioner., and the only crime is that someone feels that the child may not lead a productive or useful life. You see “useful” or “productive” are subjective terms that we as a race should not be allowed to judge to the point of executing  the death penalty because they do not fit our cookie cutter idea of what is useful or productive.
On your point of Health Care, Health Care insurance is not a right, taking personal accountability for ones own health is. As a man that qualifies for both Medicaid and medicare, I understand that it is not the responsibility of another to pay for my needs. If you feel that you should be responsible for another’s medical bills then may I suggest you go see the Hospital registrar and offer to pay for someones bill. The demand for Universal Healthcare is a symptom of the same disease that calls for the murder of children. The disease is called Me ism, or entitlements. The Idea that we deserve what we don’t have. This disease has tremendous side effects, like the lady in my area here in Michigan who couldn’t get a seat at a baby shower so because she didn’t get her way she shoots up a house and in the act kills a baby. the problem with “Meism” is it also kills self-reliance. Without the need of Self-reliance (necessity is the mother of invention) imagination and greatness is sniffled. Could Health care be more affordable, yes it could, and if Government would get out of the way of entrepreneurship and enterprise it would be, but even if the evil insurance companies did not want to, its their business, their money, and their choice.  To steal from one to provide for me, places me in the position of receiving stolen goods. Besides, before government got into the charities game, faith base organizations fed the poor and helped the sick. But in the end in reality the only one that should be responsible for my well being is me, nor should I or no one else place that burden on another.  

Unless they are manipulating you to serve some purpose, they are a living contradiction. Most atheists cannot intellectualize a God of any sort, though there is an underlying moral compass that these same atheists acknowledge. Out of all living being, why are humans the only ones with moral values? Because we are made in His image.

If there is no God and life happened by chance, as a matter of natural selection, then where do you get these morals. The bottom line is that you can’t have it both ways, either there is a inherent moral law that serves any purpose other than survival of the fittest, it is for a purpose. And if there is a purpose, something must have created that purpose. If you truly didn’t believe in God, you would have no choice BUT to be selfish.

@ Alastair….that’s total bull and you know it.  Liberals are the LAST people to respect someone’s rights.  Just ask any unborn child.

@ Alastair….that’s total bull and you know it. Liberals are the LAST people to respect someone’s rights. Just ask any unborn child.

An Open Letter to President Obama Regarding the Appointment of Science Advisor John Holdren by Michael Egnor, Discovery InstituteAn Open Letter to President Obama Regarding the Appointment of Science Advisor John Holdren by Michael Egnor, Discovery InstituteJuly 30th, 2009 | Author: Dr. Robert L. Dean Jr. The Discovery Institute is the organization that is behind many of the excellent videos on Intelligent Design” The Privileged Planet,The Mystery of Life, and interviewed in Ben Stein’s, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.Dr. Egnor, has written a succinct and informative open letter to President Obama regarding the man he selected to be the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John Holdren. Dr. Holdren has a decades long backtrail which allows us a very large window into this man’s soul and belief system. As Bible believing Christians it is incumbent upon us to evaluate people on the basis of their ideas in light of the eternal truths of Scripture.Ideas have consequences and bad ideas for public policy have disastrous consequences for a nation, and in these days, especially for Christians in these nations. At Biblical Perspectives our goal is to encourage people to think about the people, ideas, and policies of the world around us from the divine viewpoint of the Bible.When you read this open letter, ask yourself how a Bible believing Christian, someone who believes in a personal-infinite, redemptive God, a God who created all things in 7 days less than 10,000 years ago, a God who directly created the human race in his image, can support the ideas, policies, or positions of someone like Dr. Holdren. Further, how can anyone who claims to believe the Bible, support a politician who would appoint such a man to an influential position in our nation.Here is the open letter by Dr. Egnor.Dear President Obama,I note with dismay your appointment of Dr. John Holdren as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Although Dr. Holdren’s experience in academia and administration may be adequate, his publicly expressed views regarding population control disqualify him from holding office.I will set aside objections to Dr. Holdren’s scientific competence. Despite his strong scientific credentials, he advanced theories in the 1970’s and 1980’s that have become the paradigm of ideologically motivated junk science. He and his collaborators (such as co-author Paul Ehrlich) predicted world-wide famine as a consequence of over-population by the late 20th century, and they advocated radical coercive public policies to avert catastrophe. These predictions were explicit, public, and were published under professional imprimatur. Obviously, the predictions were wrong. Dr.Holdren’s predictions are an exemplar of scientific incompetence.But it is the spectre of Dr. Holdren’s competence, not his incompetence, that concerns me. In 1977 Dr. Holdren and his colleagues Paul and Anne Ehrlich published the book Ecoscience. In it, Holdren and his co-authors endorse the serious consideration of radical measures to reduce the human population, particularly third world populations, such as India, China and Africa. The measures include:• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.• Women — particularly women of insufficient means due to poverty, nationality, marital status, or youth — could be forced to abort their children and undergo sterilization.• Implementation of a system of “involuntary birth control,” in which girls at puberty would be implanted with an infertility device and only could have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.• Undesirable populations could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into drinking water or in food.• Single mothers and teen mothers who managed to have their children despite measures to prevent fertility should have their babies seized from them and given away to others to raise.• A transnational “Planetary Regime” and a transnational police force should be assembled to enforce population control.Although Dr. Holdren recently has asserted that he does not support coercive measures to reduce population, he has continued to champion population control ‘science’ and he includes his book “Ecoscience” prominently on his CV, without disclaimer.In other words, Dr. Holdren dissembles. He insists, despite the record, that he no longer believes what he ‘didn’t believe’ then. Evidently you accept his denial. As you are, Mr. President, a man of good will, inclined to see the best in people, you may have misunderstood Dr. Holdren’s ideology. It has a history that runs from early 20th century eugenics to the German T4 program to the modern population control movement and eco-fundamentalism. It is a view of man as pestilence. No one who holds that view, or has held that view, or who has publicly endorsed serious consideration of that view, should be in a position of influence in our government.There is a deep and disturbing irony in your appointment of Dr. Holdren as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The irony, sir, is this: Dr. Holdren endorsed the serious consideration of radical measures — including involuntary sterilization and abortion — to cull mankind. And he was not an equal-opportunity culler. He betrayed a particular animus to children conceived of third world parentage to young mothers of limited means. He asserted that they were a burden that we dare not bear — for the sake of humanity and for the sake of the Earth. He implored us to ensure that these children were never given life.He meant you.Sincerely,Michael Egnor, M.D.Dr. Robert L. Dean Jr. The Discovery Institute is the organization that is behind many of the excellent videos on Intelligent Design” The Privileged Planet,The Mystery of Life, and interviewed in Ben Stein’s, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.Dr. Egnor, has written a succinct and informative open letter to President Obama regarding the man he selected to be the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John Holdren. Dr. Holdren has a decades long backtrail which allows us a very large window into this man’s soul and belief system. As Bible believing Christians it is incumbent upon us to evaluate people on the basis of their ideas in light of the eternal truths of Scripture.Ideas have consequences and bad ideas for public policy have disastrous consequences for a nation, and in these days, especially for Christians in these nations. At Biblical Perspectives our goal is to encourage people to think about the people, ideas, and policies of the world around us from the divine viewpoint of the Bible.When you read this open letter, ask yourself how a Bible believing Christian, someone who believes in a personal-infinite, redemptive God, a God who created all things in 7 days less than 10,000 years ago, a God who directly created the human race in his image, can support the ideas, policies, or positions of someone like Dr. Holdren. Further, how can anyone who claims to believe the Bible, support a politician who would appoint such a man to an influential position in our nation.Here is the open letter by Dr. Egnor.Dear President Obama,I note with dismay your appointment of Dr. John Holdren as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Although Dr. Holdren’s experience in academia and administration may be adequate, his publicly expressed views regarding population control disqualify him from holding office.I will set aside objections to Dr. Holdren’s scientific competence. Despite his strong scientific credentials, he advanced theories in the 1970’s and 1980’s that have become the paradigm of ideologically motivated junk science. He and his collaborators (such as co-author Paul Ehrlich) predicted world-wide famine as a consequence of over-population by the late 20th century, and they advocated radical coercive public policies to avert catastrophe. These predictions were explicit, public, and were published under professional imprimatur. Obviously, the predictions were wrong. Dr.Holdren’s predictions are an exemplar of scientific incompetence.But it is the spectre of Dr. Holdren’s competence, not his incompetence, that concerns me. In 1977 Dr. Holdren and his colleagues Paul and Anne Ehrlich published the book Ecoscience. In it, Holdren and his co-authors endorse the serious consideration of radical measures to reduce the human population, particularly third world populations, such as India, China and Africa. The measures include:• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.• Women — particularly women of insufficient means due to poverty, nationality, marital status, or youth — could be forced to abort their children and undergo sterilization.• Implementation of a system of “involuntary birth control,” in which girls at puberty would be implanted with an infertility device and only could have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.• Undesirable populations could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into drinking water or in food.• Single mothers and teen mothers who managed to have their children despite measures to prevent fertility should have their babies seized from them and given away to others to raise.• A transnational “Planetary Regime” and a transnational police force should be assembled to enforce population control.Although Dr. Holdren recently has asserted that he does not support coercive measures to reduce population, he has continued to champion population control ‘science’ and he includes his book “Ecoscience” prominently on his CV, without disclaimer.In other words, Dr. Holdren dissembles. He insists, despite the record, that he no longer believes what he ‘didn’t believe’ then. Evidently you accept his denial. As you are, Mr. President, a man of good will, inclined to see the best in people, you may have misunderstood Dr. Holdren’s ideology. It has a history that runs from early 20th century eugenics to the German T4 program to the modern population control movement and eco-fundamentalism. It is a view of man as pestilence. No one who holds that view, or has held that view, or who has publicly endorsed serious consideration of that view, should be in a position of influence in our government.There is a deep and disturbing irony in your appointment of Dr. Holdren as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The irony, sir, is this: Dr. Holdren endorsed the serious consideration of radical measures — including involuntary sterilization and abortion — to cull mankind. And he was not an equal-opportunity culler. He betrayed a particular animus to children conceived of third world parentage to young mothers of limited means. He asserted that they were a burden that we dare not bear — for the sake of humanity and for the sake of the Earth. He implored us to ensure that these children were never given life.He meant you.Sincerely,Michael Egnor, M.D.

I’m a 52 yr. old male who is and will remain single. Women have changed in this country, they no longer seem to be nurturing and gentle. They have become aggressive and self-willed. Children seem to be a hinderence to their “life”. When women loose tenderness than a society isn’t far from the end. God help us. (I know that there are exceptions but the point is the same)

 You are correct

Is it any wonder that the United States is falling, and soon to be an impoverished third world irrelevant nation? Now Austrailia asks for the same thing. I propose we post-birth abort these so- called ethicists.

When I first met my wife 10 years ago, I told her this was coming.  I also made another prediction which we’re seeing happening right in front of our eyes…the slow legalization of pedophilia.  Think I’m joking?  Illinois right now is trying to make it a law that pedophiles only get 10 years in prison…claiming that it is something “they are born with”.  Where have we heard that before? 

No, they are not just poking us with a stick.  This is actually happening in Neonatal Intensive Care Units in the USA!  Premature babies are denied resuscitation and offered “comfort care” [i.e. "rocking your baby to death"] because a minority of these preemies would survive with a disability.  To prevent one baby surviving with a disability, all are sacrificed.  It’s pitiful.

@ Alastair…by good, quality health care, do you mean one person paying for another person’s contraception and abortion?  Or were you refering to the price hikes that have hit the insurance industry over the last two years since Obamacare was passed? 

Nice post. God bless you and your niece.

 Just In the past 3 years this country has flipped  so bad liberally that I’d expect anything coming out of their mouths and actions.  To even think to Kill a baby after birth is sickening.  And the more they say it, the more people believe its okay.  They should remember the old story, “first they came for …….. 
Yes, we do need to really pray to try and overturn this type of thinking.  In God we Trust….For some of us.

@ Alastair…by good, quality healthcare, do you mean making one group of people pay for another group of people’s contraception or abortion?  Or were you refering to the price increases from the insurance companies since Obamacare was passed?  Just curious.

Oh dear God, NO. The kid spent all that time getting born only to die right out of the gate?How about letting everybody who can’t have kids and want one decide if the kid should be killed or not.

I am not sure you will be receiving GOOD quality healthcare. More like rationed healthcare. Wait and see. Coming soon. If you think he is doing that because he is a nice person, you are wrong. It is to control as much as he can.
I guess you are ok with the murder of babies as long as you get your healthcare ­ you will look the other way.

actually that is not the orthodox view, In Leviticus it states that if in a fight between to men and a pregnant woman is injured and a loss of the life of the child occurs, then the penalty is death but if the child is nos carried then the penalty demanded by the husband is a financial one.

Well Alastair…a better question would be, was it right or wrong for Obama to kill bin Laden? 

Obviously, you don’t care about the dead babies. It is so common place you can’t feel empathy for them anymore. Very sad.

 You use faulty logic and make a great jump to state “…ok with murder…”. When I lived in Louisiana there was a case in which a man awaited the molester of his child at the local airport who was in custody. He killed the molester. I would not call that murder and had I been on that jury would have taken into consideration his position as parent and what had happened to his child. In that case I would have voted to acquit that man ( as did the Louisiana jury). It is up to every individual juror across America to not only vote on guilt based upon no reasonable doubt, but also to use juror nullification when the government has lost its humanity and seeks to punish the just. We were given brains to use and not to allow them to languish when injustice takes place.

Your good judgment? Maybe it is not your judgment but the lies Satan is whispering in your ear. He loves people who have such pride of ones self. That is his favorite sin.

Digusting. With attitudes like these it is no wonder that child abuse and childhood sexual abuse are so prevelent. This is one example of the silent holocaust against children that is taking place all around us. It’s time to start speaking up for children. Their lives are equal to ours in God’s eyes and they should be valued by all of us.

You are so right. Not to mention the animal rights groups that will save an animal but kill their own baby. They won’t eat meat but have an abortion. I don’t get it.

This Pres and his cronies need to go!
Re-elect this anti-American at your peril.
There is a line between good and bad, moral and immoral, and infanticide is immoral.
Obama said he would “fundamentally change America.”
Do you believe him yet?   

Are you seriously that dim? Or are you just being flippant? The job of an ethicist is NOT to attempt to rationalize the unethical (abortion/infanticide) into being ethical. To do so would be the OPPOSITE of being an ethicist.

67 years after Hitler’s death is all it took, perhaps 2 or 3 generations and humans forget, all in the name of community cohesion, social justice, etc., it’s all for our own good, dont’cha know?

A little quote I came across the other day:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good
of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s
cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but
those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do
it with the approval of their own conscience. – C.S Lewis

So sayeth Alastair Gray, King of Pedants.

Pray, People! Pray!  Like you never have at any time in your lives.  Speak to every one you interact with and encourage them to strive against the direction we are heading in.  2 Chronicles 7:14…

… and prosecute with jail time any one who killed the puppies or kittens. 

He was a brilliant man. He appealed to every Christian denomination. He appealed to every human being with that quote.

So when does this end?  Two year after-birth abortion when I don’t have time to potty train?  Sorry kid, you aren’t doing calculus before 4th grade so you won’t be beneficial to the community.  Can I abort my fetus just before their 18th birthday?  But liberals are more than happy to continue paying people to not work.  Brilliant

Soooo if they are so keen on all this “terminating-the-fetus-stuff”, I would whole-heartedly support them if they first practice it on them selves… that way the problem is ‘self terminating’ as it were and we can return to a respect for life that marks all great peoples. 

Margaret Sanger is surely dancing in hell – Eugenics has been reborn!  I have never heard anything so horrific.

This idea has floated around for a long time. Peter Singer, college professor, has advocated killing babies for decades. It is inevitable that this kind of thinking will become a reality because humans are now considered by those on the left to be worthy of life only if they are “functional”. That same philosophy has enabled the “death with dignity” crowd to convince people killing themselves is a virtue. It all began with the widespread acceptance of birth control-I am the master of the creation of human life-and will not end until the government decides who is allowed to be born and which of us needs to be taken into the clinic for an “after abortion termination”. Soylent Green anyone?

 I told a Catholic friend in Canada 12 years ago that not only would homosexual’s be allowed to marry, but the government would force taxpayers to pay for abortions as well as force the Catholic Church out of the business of health care, social services, and the right for them to practice their faith. Saw it coming but no one cared to stop it.

When the issue of using federal taxpayers money to fund the destruction of embryo’s for experimentation reared its ugly head, President Bush established an ethics committee to look into the issue. One of the first things Obama did after elected was to disband the committee. There are no moral nor ethical lines which the left will not cross because to them, the ends always justify the means. And if sacrificing a few hundred, thousand, or million people to reach that end, that is the price they are willing to pay.

A burden!?How dare they!This is murder!Prevention is the solution,not killing newborns.

Hey Snowleopard, good to see your posts as always.  One of the most basic causes behind all this attrocity and much of the political crap we currently live through is this: we have come to the point in our culture that we fear pain of any kind.  We seek comfort and liesure, entertainment and pleasure excluding all esle.   This translates into killing unborn babies because they are an inconvience.  They will cause years of extra work and struggle to provide food, shelter, and a life.  It’s the same reason more and more people are willing to live off of the government teat; it’s easier than work..  People are willing to kill for convience, road rage, because someone mad dogged their girl, and on , and on and on.   I hear the Romans are making room for us in their own particular version of hell.  This is like the cult of Molec, with out the bronze idol….. still killing babies for personal benefit.  Have a good one and keep your eyes lifted up and focused on everything that is good.

I have come to terms with abortion being legal,but it should not be allowed after 3 months if it is to be legal.Abortion is not birth control.But this is MURDER no matter what you call it.

And just to quote him will often invoke ridicule from the sanctimonious secularists in their righteous unknowing, as they clamor for their own bondage.

Add one more type to the ‘After Birth Abortions’ as ALL those that think so wrongly, All Pro-abortionist should agree to their own ‘abortion’. 

The answer is YES!  Start reading about the Fabian Socialists and you soon come to their support of Eugenics and for reducing the human race in general.  Some of the proponents of the Fabians strongly supported reducing the human population of the wolrd by up to 90%.  Obama is a Fabian in his core beliefs.  Look at the Forbes article from 11/3/08.  The Fabians and other elitists do not mind the death of others.  They only cry out to stop the killing when the chaos gets away from them and the mobs begin to kill them.  Then they want it to stop.  And Yes we need to pray like we never have before; 2 Chronicles 7:14…..

America and all other countries that do abortions are in the same league as the Pharaoh King Herod, and Hitler.  But I do believe it’s time to give Washington and the White House some abortions and get someone in there that’s displaying some slight flicker, at least, of brain power.  How the hell America put a damn moslem in as president is beyond belief.

Alastair, the ‘health care’ that obama and his puppet masters pushed through is not helath care.  It was never about health care.  Every government on earth that has its roots in marx used topics like universal health care, along with what ever the oppressed masses craved and would respond to, to lure them in with promises of utopia.  The problem is that humans are incapable of making a utopia!  Communism/socialism or what ever name it takes is a great topic of discussion over red wine, but it NEVER works.  No government has ever made it work.  obama care is aobut control.  almost every aspect of our lives can now be regulated because what ever we do impacts ‘health care’ costs; the vehicle you drive, the food you eat, social issues.  Please ask your self, are you OK with a government that can force you to buy a product because it is deemed healthy?  The words are right, we need to fix the insurance industry.  their motives are pure evil, even though they believe that they are the saviors of the world.  Please dig deeper.  Obama is a socialist.  He believes that the human race must evolve to the next level.  They will not be benevolent dictators.  Read 1984 or Animal Farm by George Orwell.  Read Ayan Rand.  For a short over view of where this is really going read The New Road To Serfdom.  The elite will end up controlling us unless we stand up, say NO! and take control of ourselves.  Ameritopia is a brilliantly written book.  Please do not buy into the manure the media feeds the country.  have a good one.

I am going to puke.

 ”Lieben nacht lieben” was the term coined by the Nazis.  Translation, “Life not worthy of life.”  Same old story just a different language and a different century.

Alastar gray,,, Sure that is the whole problem.This society has been brainwashed by “good liberals” into thinking that whatever suits you regardless of the damage as long as you feel good about yourself then anything goes. Am I correct? That way of thinking has eaten away at the moale fiber that this country one had by gradually imposing immorale conduct. What is tolerated in one generation becomes acceptable in the next. Liberalism especially social liberalism will kill this country quicker than a boatload of Wall-Street execualives. No country in history has ever been rewarded for its sinfullnes.

 To some degree, they’re right. Or rather, they’re at least being more consistent with their beliefs than most abortionists. If it’s socially “morally acceptable” to kill babies in the womb, what’s the difference to killing them outside of it? Why stop there, just start killing just anyone who proves to be a burden to society. This is the inevitable outcome of disregarding the intrinsic value of human life. Instead of having inherently value, it turns to utilitarian value. I’d say hopefully this might show those for abortion how dangerous this path is, but I doubt they will. Just have to keep praying and doing what we can though.

 Jimpsonseed … it might be convenient for you to consider this to be ‘total bull’ but actually it is fact. Also, are you aware of how your claim that “Liberals are the last people to respect someone’s rights” sounds? Do you even know what Liberalism is? It sounds as though you don’t (but, of course, that doesn’t prevent you from having an opinion about it, right?). Liberalism is the original source of the idea that government should play a minimal role in the mangement of society and leave it up to the (supposedly reasonable and well-informed) citizens to make up their own minds as to what they should do and when. It might now be the case that ‘the state’ appears to play a very active role in how society works but in actual fact the choice still remains with the individual (e.g. a poor family is not forced to claim welfare but it is, hopefully, available to them should they wish to do so).

Mark, it’s always easy to play the ‘brainwashing’ card but we mustn’t be so willing to stray into conspiracy theory territory. As I wrote above, the ‘liberal agenda’ (assuming there is one) is explict and not subversive. The word itself, in the US, has somehow become confused with ‘left-wing’ or ‘socialist’ when in fact it is not only possible to be a liberal capitalist but the original liberals would have been proponents of a capitalist system (although they would have been reluctant to espouse the current ‘free-market’ set-up as it tends to favour the wealthy rather than allowing everyone to enter the marketplace).

It strikes me that both of you have a very specific understanding of what ‘liberalism’ means. Despite this, you’re clearly not fans (of your interpretation of it). If you had the chance, would you be willing to go back in time and reverse the various decisions regarding the equality and safety of citizens that were products of a liberal mindset (e.g. the ending of both slavery and segregation, the setting up of government agencies to make sure that private companies do not threaten the health or well-being of citizens, the protecting of children who are in abusive households or the establishment of a universal education system that is open to all regardless of economic status)? If you are willing to get rid of all of these things then at least you are consistent in your beliefs. However, if you are not willing to do this then perhaps you are not so opposed to liberalism as you think (especially when its achievements benefit you).

“Lieben nacht lieben” was the term coined by the Nazis. Translation, “Life not worthy of life.” Same old story just a different language and a different century.

 PS You remember how that all ended…right?

Murder is murder and it doesn’t matter how old the individual. I’m so sick of these Polly Dogooders that save whales, dogs, cats, and anything that cannot argue with them, while advocating murder for babies. They’re all a bunch of sick POS’.

Well, hell, I would prefer ”after-birth abortion” to ”infanticide” too!  But, anyway you look at it,

it’s still murder.    And I certainly hope if a case is ever brought to court, that is how it will be

judged.

 Are you seriously asking whether Liberals would respect a decision that makes it right to kill Liberals? Seriously? Ok, if I must.

If we go back to John Stuart Mill (a liberal), we find his ‘one simple principle’ to pretty much set the standard as to how we should act in regard to other humans. He writes that (and I paraphrase) the only justifiable situation in which the state (or, indeed, any person) may intervene in the life of someone is when that person is themselves unjustifiably intervening in the life of a third person. So far as I can tell, this would not accept the killing of liberals.

As for abortion, the question still remains as to whether it is ever justifable for anyone to step in and terminate a pregnancy. I maintain that simply not wanting a child is not sufficient grounds for termination (so long as the mother could have given her consent to become pregnant in the first place i.e. not through rape) as the child can be given up for adoption. However, we know that there are many debilitating medical conditions that cause extreme suffering (including ectopic pregnancy, in which both the child and the mother are not likely to survive). Given this, what right do we have to force life upon a child who will have to suffer pain throughout? I admit that Mill does not write about this situation; however, his sentiment seems to be that we should care about quality of life and not simply ‘mere life’ (in fact, if we only cared about the latter then we would be justified in doing all sorts of terrible things and we should be thankful that quality of life matters).

So, to answer your question: no, liberals would not respect the alleged right to kill liberals. In fact, for a decent liberal, there is never a ‘right to kill’.

I can see where this is going and it is dreadful.  If there is a live birth and it is decided that the poor infant must be destroyed……..I can just see that infant being ripped apart to harvest the organs.  It is no secret that it is difficult to obtain organs of infants and young children for youngsters who need transplants.  I read an article several years ago that a Canadian doctor discovered that a very young organ has a very low rejection rate and doesn’t even have to be a “match” to produce a greater succes rate  for organ recipients.  This is beyond sickening and should be against the law in any country. 

Your very statement justifies killing liberals.  They impinge on my life and the lives of hundreds of millions of others. It seems a very good idea, or at least we should be able to deport them as grave yards are getting to expensive for mass burials. We could always keep the illegal aliens and deport the liberals.  The illegals are here for jobs and they know enough about being deported that we could offer all sorts of compensation.

This in response to your later post.  Liberals want smaller government? Bull!!!! They are all about big government. That is why we the have useless dept of  education, Dept of energy, dept of commerce, dept of interior and several others that are doing the job without  any oversite.  Congress is supposed to pass regulations, not politically appointed dirtbags with an agenda.
    It’s the liberal way, lie about what you are actually doing and then continue to lie to justify it.

In America you become a citizen at birth according to the constitution and the Supreme Court. If these ethicists get their way, it will become ethical to murder (permanently “deport” back to heaven) unwanted infant citizens born in this country. But is there any doubt these same ethicists would say that it is unethical to deport unwanted non-citizens back to their own country?

How old does an infant have to be before it is no longer ethical to do an “after-birth abortion“?  One day? One Month? 100 years? Perhaps it is ethical to perform retro-active abortions on ethicists if it is found to be in the best moral interest of the planet.  But instead of calling it an abortion, we should take a page from their book and use a term that is more acceptable. We could call it an “ethicystectomy”, meaning the removal of a type of cyst called an ethi-cyst. Who could argue the world would not be a better place without them if they deem infanticide and the Nazi-like killing of ”unacceptable” citizens to be ethical? 

In other words if your child is not perfect kill it. Despicable. And at what age is the cut off.?When they can care for themselves?How can sane people think this way?

The trouble is the sugarcoated name changes work with a lot of people… Out of sight, out of mind- don’t want to admit it’s a baby? Then don’t look at it, don’t do a sonogram, don’t call it a baby-or even admit it’s a fetus which grows into a baby. Hey, don’t even admit it’s human… After all, if it’s got to depend on a person with that attitude, it;s chances are slim to begin with…

The shame is, this  type of sidestepping is a disservice and insult to anyone who has had to make the hard decision-seriously weighing the decision, not for convenience but for what is right- of whether or not to have an abortion. I know a couple who were advised, due to an irreparable, in utero, condition- to abort their baby. Yes, their BABY- and they had to do so before she (the baby was a girl) was past the age allowed.

It’s a hard choice- not a right- and it’s a shame that people such as these ‘ethicists’ are allowed to cultivate these illusions.

 Sure….good quality health care but lousy food.

You have no idea what you are talking about, since you get 100% of your info from CNN and Yahoo.  Did you ever hear of something called the “food security/obesity paradox”?

It’s when, in the USA, the regions with the least food security (IE people on SNAP and WIC) have the highest levels of obesity. Isn’t that strange?  Don’t you think that it’s strange that the Government thinks that obesity is a huge problem, an epidemic, and something that is the root cause of so many health issues, yet their own government programs seem to be the primary cause of it in poor neighborhoods.  I know this because I attended a conference by the USDA that tried to tackle this very problem.  Their solution?  Higher payouts and more people on the programs! 

So, what the government is doing is essentially MAKING those “poorer people” fat and sick, then giving them so-called “good quality health care”, that other people are paying for, to try to keep them alive. 

But that, you know, is the kind of person Barrak Obama is:  Make them sick then give them free health care and look like a messiah in the process.  That’s like the hillbillies that throw tacks in the road, and when tourists come to their gas station looking to fix their flat, the gas station charges them huge fees but come out looking like saviors in the process. 

Create a problem to go with your pre-concieved solution.  THAT is the kind of person YOUR president is.

I don’t know, they change names like they rewrite history… Give him a minute and he’s liable to make you pro-choice and say that he was on the ‘right’ side before it was the ‘right’ side..

It doesn”t make sense we cannot slaughter old horses for dog n cat food but it is o. k. to kill a child.

 The universal education system is a joke.  Have you seen the latest testing score reports out of Florida?  They are pathetic and getting worse.  The education system is failing, no matter how you try to spin it.

These same government agencies are the ones that use pseudo-science to regulate the food industry, to subsidize certain crops while they tax others out of existence,; did you know the USDA is the major funder behind biotechnology and GMO foods, which STILL have yet to be proven as safe?  Did you know that the current head of the USDA used to work for Monsanto?

Of course not.  It’s because you are a fool who thinks he knows “EVERYTHING”.  You don’t.  Go to washington.  Talk to people there.  Talk to a lot of people.  Sit in the hotel lounges that the politicians that you are protecting make decisions with lobbiests on how we should all live our lives. 

The mistake you are making here is that you are not making a distinction between classical liberalism and Liberal (capital L) ideology, which originates from progressivism, and which has ties to the socialist movement of the past 160+ years.  You make a fatal error in that much of what you say here comes from history books, written by the same people in positions of power that conveniently leave out details that may disrupt their own perception of what happened. 

Right now, Liberalism is not the same as classical liberalism, which was lasse faire economics at its core; current Liberalism is based on heavy government regulations, high taxes, and redistribution of wealth.  These are facts that you cannot deny, and the people who are proponents of this methodology call themselves “Liberal”, hence why many people equate “Liberalism” with these policies. 

So, it would be better for society as a whole not to face the human who does not meet the perfect requirements to fit in today’s society? These children, and their rights, might be an unbearable burden? How can these disgusting people hold their heads up after printing such an article, or making such statements? When will it be unbearable for the elite, to look at the faces of the common man who does not fit their standard of being elite? Just who will get to decide that the lame, infirm, metally challenged, and poor, will be allowed to live in this eutopia of perfection? Who will judge whether these people are fit to do the job of wiping out life? Just when one thinks that the world can’t get any sicker, it does!

 I agree with general Kota.  I was a philosophy major in college and I know these degrees are jokes.  They have to put out these research papers so they can get grants, because there are NO jobs for people who practice “applied philosophy” in the private sector and the only jobs for “public ethics” are as government paid researchers.  The researchers put out papers that “justify” a certain ideal, such as the idea that SNAP prevents food insecurity and is healthy, even though the research conclusions can be totally contrary to what the initial ideal is.  In fact, researchers are NOT allowed to publish their findings if it disproves what they are paid to PROVE!  This is what happens with the ERS!  In 2010, a pair of researchers found out that SNAP did NOT decrease food insecurity and actively contributed to obesity-but they were NOT allowed to say that in public! 

So, it is pretty safe to say that government funded research, that is directly attached to policy and policy makers, is not reliable at all.  In fact, it is defined as this:  Slanted.

Yes, that is what Eugenicists state, such as the two Dr’s who published this paper.

 The very fact that you stated that makes you a sick and demented individual. 

“matter of whether we should force a child who is experiencing great pain
to bear that pain on the basis of our idea about the sanctity of life.”.

Read the paper.  That’s not what they are talking about.  You are skewing the truth to fit your philosophical perspective and to make yourself look schmart.  It’s not working.  You aren’t that smart and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh my, you sound so well educated. Thanks for the lessons one has taught us here! A child being forced to suffer in pain? Well, forbid that thought! I wonder if my idea of “quality of life,” meets the definition of others. The Bible teaches that we do not suffer what anyone else has not suffered. A decent liberal? This is not a decent discussion! Well, just imagine “mere life,” for the sake of life? I’m sure a decent liberal could come up with the idea that as long as they are being humane in putting this human out of their misery of “mere life,” that something useful may as well be done with their bodies. For example, would one not say it would be a brillant idea to harvest the organs of one who would just have “mere life,” to benefit those who could have a better quality life, IF they just had that imperfect person’s organs. Maybe, there is never a right to kill, but it seems as if we are edging closer to a right to murder. That would be with forethought, in case one missed that.

“Abortion” after birth is Infanticide!  Are these people Nuts?

The problem, Alastair, is that in the USA, there are very few “proper liberals.” In my mind, a true liberal would be open to any idea. Unfortunately that is far from the case at this point in history. What we call liberals now, are really the progressives of 100 years ago. They are the ones who started Planned Parenthood (abortion factory) for the purpose of improving the genetics of the human race. They are elitists who truly believe they know better how to run your life than you do. And, out of the goodness of their heart will tell you what to eat, think and do. I really think a libertarian or conservative nowadays is much closer to your definition of a liberal. I consider myself to be somewhere in the libertarian/conservative spectrum politically, and don’t mind the idea of everyone doing what they choose to do so long as it doesn’t harm others. Unfortunately when the Nanny State is in effect, as it is now, many personal decisions affect the State, and therefore become the Government’s business.

Bottom line: I do think today’s American liberal cares more about an unborn dog than an unborn human.

 Actually, you are wrong again.

The first “code of ethics” was a stone tablet attributed to the first king of Akkad, the “Sharru-kin” (righteous king) Sargon I.  It is known as “The Code of Sargon”, and Hamurabi co-opted much of it later on in “Hamurabi’s code”, which was the code of ethics and morality that much of the book of proverbs and psalms are based on.

Prior to these “codes”, there was no “good judgement” that people practiced; mankind was simply too primitive and primal to have any judgment beyond what needed to be done for survival.  The “code”, according to the mesopotamean clay tablets, was “give from [the] gods” to man, and Sargon was “chosen” as the first king of Akkad by the goddess “Ishtar”, who is said to have given the principles of ethics to Sargon to teach his people-such as not to steal, do not kill, do not lie, etc… All concepts that were non-existent prior to Sargon. 

The Ten Commandments, in their essence, are the Jewish versions of such a “code” of conduct and ethics, given [by god] to man.  whether or not you believe that such codes of conduct were disseminated by god to man thousands of years ago is up to personal scrutiny and belief; however, ALL OF THESE CODES explicitly state that killing an innocent is a crime, a sin, and is vehemently opposed.  In fact, it is stated in many of these texts that killing an innocent (of any age) is a crime that is punishable, in fact, by death.   

So the teachings of Jesus Christ are not predated by “good judgment” because mankind *had no good judgment* prior to the said “codes” of “ethics” that were disseminated from a “god” or “gods” to man, literally 6000+ years ago.  Look at the archeaological history of man-circa 3800BC high civilization popped up seemingly out of nor where, and with it *ethics*.  Prior to that-nada.  zltch.  Zero.  Mankind was simply a tribal primitive who was more concerned with their own survival in the wild than they were about philosophical questions.

The fact of the matter is that, until it was “given” to man, mankind had no clue what “ethical behavior” was.  It was “religion” (IE god or gods) that created *ethics*, and ultimately and unfortunately, it was people who corrupted it.

OOOH!  Now, THAT is a super-idea!  HEY!  Once they get the supreme(not) court to rule its a go to murder your kids, what will stop us from FURTHERING the notion and pushing for life-termination of psychologically unsound, UNWANTED ETHICISTS!  Hey!   I mean, does it REALLY have to STOP at murdering unwanted babies and children you dont want?  What would be the cutoff year of age?  Like, maybe when they can tear your backside a new one in self-defense?!  WHY stop there??? WHY put a limit on the age to kill children?  Will it be ONLY parents that can murder their kids, or will we get it all extended to dusting anyone who irritates the SNOT out of us, regardless of age?  I mean, they are SOMEBODY’s kids, after all!  Hey!  Maybe we can then murder the rotten neighbor kids?  WHADDAYA think???  -Or perhaps we should just limit ourselves to unwanted children and unwanted Ethicists!  Stupid idiots.  –Oh, I just realized why they published this satanic notion of theirs:  Their studies are floundering for lack of funding, and everyone knows that leftists are ripe for funding stupid ideas.  I know they are targeting your purses, you crazed leftists!  Cough up for anything evil!  It will turn the world upside down, and you can pat yourselves on the backs for being the ones to kick Atlas’ in the gluteals while he holds up the world…Wont you feel powerful THEN???   OK.  I am a little ticked off here… I have had absolutely ENOUGH of these evil people.

Actually, Alistair, it USED to be the definition of a ‘Liberal’, MANY years ago.  Of course, we ALL know that the current self-proclaimed ‘Liberals’ are absolutely a beyond-bastardized version of anything in the original definition, and they have completely different tenets than the original liberal.  It is rather like the Nazis and the KKK, the National Fascist Party, and the Communists- Stalinites have all moved into the Liberal Party and set up permanent residence!  Oh, if there really ARE any TRUE, original Liberals left in there, they cannot be blind to what has happened to their party. It is beyond repair and has been for many years.  If there be a true, original Liberal left, let him leap as far away as s/he can from what has become of the original party and start looking for an acceptable niche.  Liberal, now, means complete lawlessness, and mob rule (while angry and full of hate for his brethren) where ANYTHING shocking and sickening goes.  And you know it, so step off your high-horse.

They said we were crazy, that it would never come to this. Here we are.

Contraception-> Abortion-> Infanticide

What will the wordsmiths call it? Right to Determine?

We’re not crazy.

So, an utterly obscure journal on the other side of the world publishes an article making an argument for something that nearly every civilized person finds abhorrent, and Glen Beck’s readers attack…American liberals? Don’t you guys realize that you’re assuming all kinds of facts and connections not in evidence? Seriously, don’t some of you have friends on the other side of the aisle that you can do a reality check with? Don’t you want to really try to understand how decent, intelligent people can come to opinions that are different than your own? Or are all libs ipso facto fools or liar who will bring this country down either through stupidity or malice?

I kinda wonder if that’s the point.  If these two people are actually trying to trap abortionists with their own “logic” and make them think about just what it is they are supporting, because as you say, if you can murder a baby for apparently having the gall to exist in the womb, why can’t you murder him when he’s outside it?  The argument that he’s no longer dependent upon his mother for life is stupid.  Even as a newborn, he is still completely dependent upon someone to keep him alive.  If you set him in a box and leave him there, he’ll starve to death.  Even after he’s born, he’s still a “parasite” for some time and needs someone to see to his every need if he’s going to survive.  (No, really, I’ve heard abortionists refer to unborn babies as parasites before.  Talk about changing the language to justify and rationalize your decisions!  You aren’t murdering a baby.  You’re eliminating a parasite.  Ugh.)

Alastair,

When I developed early onset RA, the “quality” of my life certainly decreased in some ways.  There are days when the pain is so much, I don’t want to get out of bed.  But I don’t want to die simply because of it.  I guess I’m darn lucky that 1) this painful disease struck me when I was in high school and 2) people like you don’t get to “kindly” kill me off because you think I’m suffering too much to live or some crazy nonsense, and you think you have the right to make that choice for me.  Sheesh.

You really have no idea how entirely offensive and arrogant you are, do you? Guess what.  You don’t get to decide that someone else’s pain is too much to bear.  You don’t get to judge quality of life.  You know why?  Because different people handle pain better/worse than others and no one – NO one – can decide what another person’s pain level means to that person.  We don’t “pay much attention” to “quality of life” the way you are describing because most of us recognize we aren’t God and we don’t get to decide whether or not someone else’s life has enough meaning/quality based on our own standards or pain thresholds.

pupsncats,  and I applauded Pres. Bush for what he did.  I am one who thinks no one

should create life (an embryo) only to kill it.   There is plenty of evidence of the good

that adult cells have done for the health of others.

I should have read your comment before I made mine above.  You confirmed what I was thinking was possible.

Also?  You totally rock.  I wish there were many, many more instructors like you in the world and a lot less of the ones my son has been encountering.  Have you ever considered putting your lectures/transcripts online or in a book?

cathy,  You mean the fellow who wrote Gulliver’s Travels?   Did he suggest something

like this too?

Ah, so the healthcare bill had to be passed and pushed through hurriedly so no one

would know what was in it?   Well, G.G., they got their way.  Now what do we do?

This is just another instance where we need to stand on five principles to defeat an anti-life attack.  There is a great and immediate need to understand these five key words that frame the issue, We need to properly understand: autonomy, dualism, hedonism, misguided compassion and utilitarianism,

Evil wins when we fail to see our way back to the true Christian center of an informed conscience. 
Bad logic leads to bad philosophy, which leads to bad theology.

Please email me (jmjriz@gmail.com) if you would like more info on what might unite us in The Citadel of God.

God bless America.

Good for you, ”westpenn”!    You sound like a damn fine instructor!

Your “German” is … NOT.  (“Different language” for sure!)

Lebensunwertes Leben.

walkintruth,  I did.  I would not vote for him.  Never.

This is so upsetting. True, if the baby’s condition is indeed beyond hope, beyond repair  – such as being completely blind, deaf, brain-damaged, deformed to such an extent that it has no chance of any quality of life or to remaining alive very long anyway, then it should be up to the parents, and only the parents, to decide its fate. The trouble is that such a choice could easily, in time, be taken away from the parents by medical ‘specialists’ and it would be they who would decide, or press the parents to agree to its death. One must also remember the emotional state of the parents, especially the mother, if confronted with such a baby. Heartbreaking just to think about it. May no one ever have to face such a tragedy. By the way, having had many pet cats and dogs over the years and to this very day, I’ve been amazed how, and this happened on a few occasions, a mother cat would either desert, smother or, hold your breath, eat a sick or malformed kitten after birth. I don’t know who was more upset, the mother cat or me and my family. But we respected her decision. 

Why bother with euphemisms at all I’d like to know.  This is just murder plain and simple.  
People aren’t even bothering to hide their evil minds now–they’re bringing it out for everyone to see.  Don’t worry, the longer this idea circulates the more acceptable it will become and the more people will be able to justify it.  Then Supreme Court justices will find a right for it in the Constitution.  Then getting rid of bothersome children will be as easy as stepping into Planned Parenthood for a really late term abortion. 
Old people will be next.  Anyone over 60 might as well turn themselves over for “humane elimination for the betterment of society” now and save them the trouble of hunting us down.  Don’t you love it?  “Brave New World” is here.   

First degree murder is all it is , weather the baby is full term or not. The only way to insure unwanted pregnancy is to keep your legs shut !!!!!!!

Ok that explains a little thanks but it is still a shocking thing to say.

I think that anyone that believes that abortion is an acceptable practice should go first and get themselves  aborted! Don’t say it is ok for baby to go through something ,if your not willing to try it first!

Lets not expect babies to go through something that we would not want to go through ourselves! If you think that abortion is an acceptable practice, perhaps you should go first , and get yourself aborted and see how you like it!

I can’t believe that any real thinking person could even come up with this idea.  I feel like I am living on another planet. This is disgusting and horrifying.  They think that children with Downs Syndrome are a drag on society?  I wonder just how many drug addicts and alcohol abusers are on Social Security because they just “can’t make it” in society.    Come on!  This is what happens when people are educated in our left-wing colleges and government schools.  Please parents, get your kids out of the system.

Constitutional Amendments

The Bill
of Rights.

AMENDMENT
XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by
section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section
1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unique Individual
Person’s DNA

DNA is used by all
law-enforcement agencies throughout the world to identify an individual person.
Scientists use it to identify individual organisms. It is a scientific fact
that no two individuals or organisms have the same DNA.

DNA is the road map to build a
person with different finger prints and eyes, which are also used as identifiers.
A persons parents contribute their DNA upon conception to come up with a new
and completely different DNA road map for a unique individual person. The cells
divide using that DNA to build that fetus, that child, that Doctor, Lawyer,
Judge, Scientists, Astronaut or Inventor.

Each Person sees and thinks
differently, because of the unique DNA that structures their brain. How many wonderful
breakthroughs in science, medicine or energy resource development have been
lost because of the 67 million individual persons that where destroyed,
murdered, for the sake of convince?

Despite the Moral Issue of abortion,
the lose of a unique individual person, look at the lose to Humanity as a
whole.

The Judges, Lawyers, Politicians,
Doctors and Nurses plus the woman are all guilty of violating the XIV
Amendment, Section 1 of the United States of America Constitution and the murdering
of 67 million unique individual persons. That unique DNA structure formed at the
moment of conception will never happen again.

Amen!

Lets not expect babies to go through something that we would not want to go through ourselves! If you think that abortion is an acceptable practice, perhaps you should go first , and get yourself aborted and see how you like it!  If this is going on multiple times I appoligize , but to me it looks as if it isnt being posted.

Sounds like the kind of garbage Hitler tried to do, create the perfect acceptable race, this time it’s the perfect society.  This is a practice being used in Belgium.   Have we slipped so far into the pit that we can’t ever hope to get out?   With all the new ideas being presented out there and all those who still have any moral character getting old and passing, we are in for a lot of “changes” in the future. What’s next, mandatory genocide for anyone over retirement age because they are no longer productive or might become financially burdening  to a growing population?  What have we become to even allow these types of people to even have a voice? I would say if they really want their insanity and their disregard for life to be a foundation for the “new world”, then they ought to stand in line first and take the kill pill as an example for all of us.

There is no such thing after birth abortion – there is only infanticide. Is Glenn Beck playing the Left’s word game?  Call a criminal act something else, and it’s not a crime of murder? There are laws against infanticide. This journal is abdicating infanticide if there were any real ethicist paying attention perhaps they would file a lawsuit?

 Actually, a vet would certainly do this procedure.  In fact, they would spay the pet and abort the babies.  That would be the reasoning for the abortion…spaying.  In a world where animals are constantly being put to death due to lack of adoption, this is more common practice than I would like to admit.  Irresponsible pet owners?  Yes.  You should have had your dog/cat spayed if you did not intend for it to breed.

I say we start the after birth abortions with those that advocate doing this. They are too stupid and evil  to be allowed to live.

Despicable, actually there is not a word adequate enough in any language to comprehend this mentality.  So infanticide is not infanticide? This can only expand to other groups of people for any variety of reasons—-oops, grandma–getting a little slow these days (don’t want to deal with a little senility or broken bone—-you know, that can be mighty inconvenient to the family); sorry conservative- choice of FEMA camp and hard labor to the death or extermination wards infested with what ever that contribute to quick demise.  Seems to me we have experienced this horrendous mindset numerous times in history—recent examples (Holocaust) do not need further clarification here.  Syria is a prime example, Iran, Egypt etc. etc. etc..  Now we have supposed ‘Western’ thinking that  the dignity-existance of humanity is judged by ‘the better human’ and suborned into an oblivion if not meeting standards. 
I hope there is a special place in hell reserved just for you people.  Mea Culpa, GOD, but this story makes me sick to my stomach.

Alastar’s definition is accurate for the period of the Renaissance.  The modern use of “Liberal” is equated to “Progressive” and this was done by the ‘equal results’ crowd to dodge negative labels.  Alastar is trying to go back to an older definition to make a point in the discussion and it’s only muddying up the waters.  Alastar, I’d recommend you respond just to the point and not the definition.  I’d recommend everyone stop using labels in their arguments, it just makes them weaker.

The point is that there is an apparent hypocrisy with an ideological stance that demonizes eating animals for food (P.E.T.A. et. al) or euthanizing animals for overpopulation purposes, or even extreme measures to save damaged or wounded animals, and then they also support human abortion, post birth abortion (“Murder”) and enforced birth control support even against personal belief.

I can’t disagree with the sentiment, it appears pretty hypocritical to me and logically unsupportable.  Sounds like the “Ethicists” need to go back to  Ethics 101 and stop hanging out in the rarified air of Theoretical Ethics 505.  I think they are suffering from hypoxyia.

Indeed, Mark—-you called it precisely.  Woe to humanity unless apathy-complacency and evil is not eradicated.  Reminds me of that saying–’They came for…and I was silent, they came for…and I was silent…they came for me and there was no-one left.’  Obviously heavily paraphrased, but I am sure you get the idea. 

Addendum:  both Paula and the staff of the nutrition council called it right.  Classical liberalism was totally different from present day liberalism.  The term was basterdized to sound like a ‘good’ thing and weave in the unsuspecting into the spider web.

Interesting that the they are from Australia. 
When I was 10 years old I lived in New Guinea which at the time was an Australian territory. We visited the Tommy Islands where they used to practice infanticide. because of limited space on the Islands parents were alowed one male child and one female child (not two children but one male and one female). if you had a child of one sex you were required to kill any children of the same sex until you got a child of the opposite sex and of course all children after that.
Australia put an end to the practice.

Ok, so then, the logical next step would be giving those babies the right to decide if they like their parents well enough to keep them alive.  So what would be the reasonable time allowance  in that case?  30 years?  After all, a newborn is incapable, no powers of reason or speech yet, and certainly not enough physical strength.  Then you hit those pesky teenage years with all the hormonal ups and downs, etc.  Many at that point would make an emotionally fueled choice, only to regret it the next day, after all the drama has cooled into reality.  No, I think 30 yrs sounds quite reasonable.  What say you to this Mr. Liberal?

Ah, but prevention requires responsibility, and we can’t make people be responsible for themselves, now can we.

The problem is the progressives only pretend to be doing it for our own good.

Of course they’ll go further.  Why do you think they call themselves progressive?

 Not “died”. They actually euthanize over 90% of the animals they take in. I think it’s something like 85% within 24 hours after they take them in.

So can we After-Birth Abort the criminals on Death Row?

Abortion before birth is infanticide.

 It’s not the end Beaker. Unfortunately, it’s not the end.

Study history. It’s a cycle that has been repeated throughout human history. Every great civilization throughout history has suffered periods of amoral increases. If you read through

Some of us care, but I fear that not enough.

Heavenly Father please forgive us for killing the many gift’s you gave us that we have  destroyed before they ever had there chance to change thing’s !

Post-Birth “abortion”.

Why do they use that word?  I don’ think it means what they think it means.

There are three major fallacies in your position –

1) You’re ignoring the change in the paradigm of what it means to be liberal depending upon the culture of the time in favor of defining liberalism by one “liberal” movement’s tenets. Besides ignoring that although Mill may have represented a popular movement among the liberals of his day, and although there have been many “liberals” throughout history that have held what would be considered the generally accepted principles of those who emphasize and advocate individual liberty today, what is essentially “liberal” changes depending on the culture and culture varies depending on the times. You attempt to disassociate liberalism from socialism, yet even as far back as the ancient Greeks and during the Roman Empire’s reign liberals were associated with socialistic movements. The very same arguments we’re having today are nothing new.

Just as it varies from civilization to civilization and varies by time period what conservative tenets are, so liberal tenets change.

2) Perhaps more importantly, even within a single civilization at any given time opposing ideas can be liberal. You may have proponents of eugenics and proponents of naturalism both be liberal, and yet their positions are diametrically opposed. While conservatism within a given civilization is intrinsically single-minded, made up of like-minded traditionalists, liberalism is intrinsically non-cohesive and it is impossible to logically be a proponent of all liberal points of view within a culture, because of the fundamental conflicts.

So even if it was a “liberal” idea to advocate individual liberty, it is not intrinsically antithetical to advocate socialism. While whatever group of ideas becomes rigidly established as the norm will become anti-liberal, that same group of ideas may very well have begun as a liberal movement. Thus, liberalism is always self-defeating.

3) The liberalism of Hill was an educated attempt to justify the morality of Western Philosophy without religion. It is a fallacy in itself. There is no morality without absolutes. There are no moral absolutes without religion. Hill ignored the very ancient Greek philosophers he studied as a child. Morality is either absolute, or it is not morality, it is tradition, and tradition is conservative. Hill advocated free markets and individual liberty based on a moral system that came from Judeo-Christian thought. Nothing about Hill was remarkable or new. Atheists before him had advocated the same ideas under the same premises; perhaps not always so eloquently or as intensively, but Hill did not represent anything new. And the shortcoming of Hill was the same shortcoming of his predecessors. They, like Hill, were advocating moralities without purpose, and used circular arguments to justify what they advocated as morality.

Atheism ignores “why?”. Hill ignored why. He felt that particular positions were moral, but had no real explanation/foundation why anything was moral or immoral. Religious people had long before advocated what Hill and his particular “liberal” movement advcoated. And they did so with a reason. Hill had no reason.

Almost two centuries later here you are advocating Hill’s view of liberalism, without a reason why. Hill’s liberal view wasn’t the only liberal view. It was just one of countless liberal views that have come and gone throughout human history. In the United States and indeed throughout much of the “Westernized” world it IS liberal to advocate eugenics. It IS liberal to advocate infanticide. It is conservative, based on the Judeo-Christian foundations of Western Society to resist or be opposed to such practices.

You’re advocating on behalf of liberal thought, yet fail to understand liberalism. In truth, you’re advocating one distinct paradigm of liberal thought from a specific period of time – “Classic Liberalism” – while ignoring all other forms of liberal thought from the same period and apparently ignorant of the fact that the liberal paradigm has altogether changed throughout Western society so that the “free market”, capitalism, and an emphasis on individual liberty are conservative positions in the U.S., not liberal.

Simply put: You’re wrong.

It was only a matter of time… If we (as society) allow partial birth abortions and killing it, I mean,”allowing death to occur” if it survives the pb abortion, then why should we prosecute those who just throw them in the trash after birth or for that matter kill their kids who are under the age of 2-3 yrs?  I’ve been expecting the start of this argument and here it is.  It is disgusting.

Among my first voting-the issue of abortion was on the ballot for the first time.  I voted NO and so did the majority of the nation.  But what do we know? The abortionists took aother path and got it through the Supreme Court with Roe vs Wade…protecting the rights of the minority?  As a nation, we should have kicked and screamed and continued the fight.  Now we are playing God by deciding which babies he made ‘in mistake’.  We are already aborting possible leaders, prophets, humanitarians, scientists and others who could help mankind have a future. Special needs kids and adults are great teachers and, as we interact and care for them, give us greater depth and understanding and growth potential as people.  God don’t make no mistakes.  To even consider infanticide shows such a backward slide in human nature.  Is it going to be OK then, in protection of the minority rights, to let Muslims beat and kill their wives in America?  In the beginning of our great nation, the social, economic, and religous views were all considered in making our laws.  Now kids and families are no longer number #1 for protection on our agendas but have fallen behind of protecting resources-financial and enviroment, protecting minority groups rights, protecting our standing as a nation in the world and protecting our careers. What can we do to stop these people who know all the underground tunnels to protect their obsurd issues? We need to stop apologizing for having values and acknowledge them as a nation and shout them to the world!   

As a veterinarian, I have (very) relunctantly perform the spay on a pregnant dog or cat..as there are so many unwanted cat and dogs being euthanized every day. I DO have a problem doing that!  As a veterinarian, if someone presented me with a newborn puppy or kitten that was the wrong color, etc and had a good chance at an acceptable life…I would do everything I could to save it and find a foster home. Abortions on people are bad enough, but killing people after they are born? This is reaching a new low…

You’re right! Even if it meant displacing people or infringing on human rights.  I saw a bumper sticker that said “My supreme power is my Dog!”  Disgusting!

If Alastair’s vet did not want to abort the puppies due to a violation of their personal conscience, as a Liberal, you would run to the government to have them legislate, or in Obama’s case, dictate by fiat, that all vets should perform puppy abortions and  for free.  How in the world you view this as less government and more individual “choices” . There seems to be a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of political manipulation under the guise of “do whatever you want if it feels good” and basic moral values. 

Thanks for the kind words folks. You might be interested to
know that this week I lectured on analogical arguments and I used Rev. Wright’s
notorious “G-D America” sermon as an artifact.

After having lectured on ideological visions earlier in the semester (vis-a-vis
Sowell’s constrained/unconstrained dichotomy), and on Marx’s critique of
political economies (vis-a-vis dialectical materialism, surplus value,
alienation, means of production, etc.), they were well primed to following
Wright’s argument that God condemns America because it is an oppressive capitalist
and colonialist slave master. And that Wright further argues, in his
“Chickens coming home to roost” sermon, that 9/11 was the inevitable
fulfillment a proletarian revolution against capitalist oppressors.

Now when my students arrive at an understanding of Wright’s Black Liberation
Theology in those terms, and they realize the implications of how it may
influence Obama’s policy agenda since he was a 20-year member of Wright’s
church, they look as if they’ve been told the trophy they had once won in
little league as was being taken away and awarded to the kid who as too slow,
too fat, and too uncoordinated to have made the team in the first place.

I have always been pro-choice, but this is outrageous!!!  I believe there should be options, but this is as bad as China.  I was so shocked when I read this I couldn’t even stand it.  Where is the outrage.  This is infanticide and there is no other word for it.  I feel the same way about Late term abortions.  Completely unacceptable!  I don’t want women in back alleys,  but this is chilling. 

 Well if it is not a baby in the womb…obviously it is not a baby till see says its a baby.
 actually that’s what they say reality is so ……..why not? in there mind  it is obvious.
the Lord  said he would give them a reprobate mind and he has………..

My father had a saying; ” give them a finger, and they will take your arm.” There is no difference here.  The justification for ” post birth abortion” is nothing more than a general ” post birth abortion” for all those that fit the definition that suits their purposes.  Your single child analogy is nothing more than the tip of the finger.   This thinking and ethical justifiacations are  the basis for the extermination camps that followed.  I suggest that you read how ” the final solution” all began.    On 02/28/12, Disqus<disqus.net> wrote:  Alastair Gray wrote, in response to neumayerr:  There is a marked difference between this and the justifcation for genocide, namely that the practice of ‘post-birth abortion’ is not forced upon everyone. I accept that it is forced upon one person, namly the child. However, we are not talking about the killing of a child that we simply do not want; rather, we are trying to talk about the very difficult and sensitive matter of whether we should force a child who is experiencing great pain to bear that pain on the basis of our idea about the sanctity of life.I consider the idea of sanctity of life to be of great importance. In fact, it is one of the finest examples of human compassion. However, why do we never talk about ‘quality of life’? Quality of life is not different from life itself and why should we be so willing to defend the latter and not pay much, if any, attention to the former? Link to commentneumayerr wrote: My question is: what is the time limit for a “post birth abortion”?  1 year, 5 years, 20 or 30 years, and who should be “post birth aborted”?  The infirm, the old, non belivers, conservatives, tea party members, christians and any body else?  This looks like, feels like, and smells like what happened before as the basis for past and present genocides.  —–Options: Respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications

One of my “old” arguments used to be (re: late term abortions that back then, in Texas, were so common a nurse might ask if the woman was there for a delivery or an abortion!) was “Well, why not wait until the baby’s born and then decide!”  That–once upon a time–astonished the pro-abortion group into silence..  No longer, I guess. 

They are not doubt devotee’s of Peter Singer who is also from Melbourne.  He is no doubt a relative of Karl Marx.

What about the rights of the unborn child, Alastair?  You liberals never surprise me with your COMPLETE and UTTER idiotic hypocrisy.

So we can slump down to the evil level of other countries that abandon girls because they are not valued.  He was not kidding he was going to fundamentally transform us, was he.  

SO, how long after birth?  Can we use this on Obama?  I know he’s a drain on the American family!

Well “authors”…it’s not Downs Syndrome, it’s Down Syndrome!  Down Syndrome people are not a burden to society or anyone for that fact.  If a parent of a Down Syndrome child thinks their child will be a burden, then there are plenty of people who would take care of that baby!  After-birth abortions should NOT be acceptable, period!  Every child is a gift from God, you can’t just abort a baby because it’s not the right gender or it has a certain condition! It’s no ones right to take a babies life, it’s just wrong and immoral! 

Alastair, give me a break.  NOTHING you said there to  jimpsonseed is a fact.  Also, it is YOU who doesn’t understand liberalism.  You proved it with you TOTAL misrepresentation of what it’s about.  
CONSERVATISM is the original source of the idea that government should play a minimal role in the mangement of society and leave it up to the citizens to make up their own minds as to what they should do and when.  Liberalism happens to be the exact opposite.  Liberalism is where the government plays the key role.  It might do you well to actually learn the difference between liberalism and conservatism.

Also, you have a very grievous misunderstanding of history there.  Products of a CONSERVATIVE mindset are what freed slaves and ended segregation.  The liberal mindset gave us Jim Crow Laws.   CONSERVATIVES gave us the protecting of children who are in abusive households or the establishment of a universal education system that is open to all regardless of economic status.  Liberals couldn’t care less about those children in abusive households.  It might do you well to actually do some actual research into which side actually performed what you are saying.  When CONSERVATIVES first tried to free slaves, liberals seceded from the Union and started the Civil War.  Liberals take credit for ending segregation ONLY because we had a liberal President at the time.  However, conservatives have been fighting to end segregation ever since CONSERVATIVES freed the slaves 100 years earlier.  This is all due to conservatives.  Liberals had NOTHING to do with it and just fought against it at nearly EVERY SINGLE turn.  These are just historical facts for you.  Of course, you being a liberal hypocrite will likely just ignore them.

Kim Sudac, what Alastair calls a proper liberal isn’t even a proper liberal because it completely changes the very definition of liberalism.

Thanks for the information. I did not know that they killed so many animals.

What until things like sexual orientation can be revealed by prenatal advances.

Then we’ll see a dramatic rise in homosexual pro-lifers.

So we can go after and jail parents for NOT seeking medical attention for religious beliefs… but you can murder a child after birth (or even before) and its okay. Just another bucket full of water to add to the sinking life raft were on! I would love to “abort” some of these people. Just tell them “sorry, your a drain on society and we think your a burden on your family” 

Oh, I just saw this in the Mail Online and I came over to see if it was mentioned here.  She forgot to say “or if they are deemed bad for the planet” – Bill Maher declared himself in favor of birth control for this reason an episode or so ago.  I know he wasn’t born that way but I was trying to see if Stephen Hawkings taught at the same university.

What about the rights of the teenager who is coerced into having an abortion by planned parenthood, a boyfriend, or an adult. A 14 or 15 year old girl hasn’t the emotional or spiritual maturity to make a decision like this. She hasn’t any idea of the future emotional pain that can come along from such a decision. 
In my opinion, the young girls who have abortions are just as much victims as the unborn babies whose lives are ended. In many ways, when she has an abortion, the young girls life ends too. As she matures and comes to realize what she has done, the pain and shame can oftentimes be overwhelming. Perhaps one day a class action law suit will be filed against Planned Parenthood on behalf of the young girls who have had abortions and have suffered because of it. But more importantly, perhaps one day we will live in a society where young girls and boys are taught to respect their own bodies enough to sustain from sexual activity until marriage. This is a complex and painful issue to be sure. There are no easy answers and everyone has their own opinion. Clearly the only answer is to realize that we don’t have the answers. We need to turn back to God. He has the answers we seek. 

100% of the people that are pro abortion, and now apparently, pro post birth murder are already born. go figure. 

This story is sad beyond belief.  The incremental justification for killing the unborn has–like the pregancies that were ended later and later as time went by–come to full term.  What kind of monsters have we become who have allowed this to happen to the innocents?  While we have given all quarter to the rights of the mother, we have denied the ultimate right–the right to life–to each and every right to those individuals who died while no one spoke for them.  I hereby apologize to society and repent to my God for not having done more to stop what I’ve known to be wrong all this time.  With my apology and repentance comes the resolve to atone for my past (mis)deeds.  I only hope that it is not too late to earn forgiveness from my fellow mand and absolution from my God for my past failures.

Read “The Seal of Gaia” by Marlon Maddox. I read this when it was first published many years ago now. I thought some of it was a bit outlandish, but a good book overall with a plausible description of the rapture as well. Now I realize it wasn’t so outlandish after all. In the book they can abort up to age five. There is a special place in hell for people like this! They will try to repent but it will be too late then.

 Very true. It isn’t their aim to be either “moral” or “good”. To them, everything is relative. There is no absolute morality. Good is simply relative to what one desires. They desire to be at the top and in control, shaping the world as if it was their experiment to play with.

 No kidding. And since when is a degree in a given field of study license to get a pass whenever one does something antithetical to that particular field of study?

Someone that graduates with a degree in art history that turns around and destroys every bit of art and historical publication on art they can obtain isn’t being an artist while doing so.

You have disqualified yourself from a discussion concerning ethics among rational people.

Actually, I’m willing to do so. Atheism is antithetical to morality. It is a refusal to acknowledge the question “why?”. Morality is absolute. There is no absolute morality without God. Your version of morality is simply tradition based on the morality of religious people. Tradition and morality are distinct.

Atheism and nihilism are inseparable. The advocation of a system of morality from an atheistic position is a farce.

 Congrats on surviving medical school without being brainwashed and indoctrinated. I have (had?) a close friend that was not so lucky.

What did they say we could do with Australian ethicists who are putting our well-being at risk when they lapse
into subjectivism, pointless theorization and elaboration of
logical constructions not connected withreality?

OK. So is it too late to abort these two? 

It’s so stupid that people are getting all worked up about this. It’s a THOUGHT EXERCISE. Two people in Australia took part in a ridiculous thought experiment and tried to justify it with ethics (since when did people get pissed at others for thinking). You would be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with them.  It’s not like it’s in a bill or that there is a lobbyist group called  “National League Of Post Abortionists Supporters” forming.

 The only thing that is happening with this is people *cough cough Glenn Beck* are trying to manipulate the feelings of others and agitate them by bringing up ridiculous stuff like this and claiming it is a shift in the moral pendulum. It’s the equivalent of visiting a college philosophy club and having two people advocating communism and claiming there is a red uprising.

I have had this phrase for a while now “non parental post birth abortion” .  Makes killing some one seem less offensive doesn’t it. 

dude, I know most people get on here to argue and listen to themselves type. I want to be completely honest with you. Selfishness plagues us all, every single one of us. Even if you do good things most of the time we do it because it makes us feel good or we want the recognition, If you really want to start living a selfless life, start doing good and making sure no one every finds but about it even if you have to lie a little. by the time anyone even reads this ill probably be dead. I’m killing myself because of how selfish i am and how much I hate it. I really wish people wouldnt fight and be so cruel to each other, Its driving us to be even more selfish. I’m sorry but really cant take it any longer.

Um, a vet might do this but you might remember that there is a rather significant difference between an animal and a human being. Or haven’t you gotten to that part of the 1st grade curriculum yet?

When I was in college as an undergraduate, my linguistics professor stated blandly, matter-of-factly, that an infant is not human until it can speak, and may be disposed-of up until that time.  He seemed surprised I disagreed because this is just an obvious fact.  When the intelligent elite get to define what it means to be human, and when the non-yet-human or not quite-human may be disposed-of, get ready for another genocide.

Louise,you are so right. The concept of killing God the Fathers children, in the womb or out, IS from satan the devil. he wants to destroy all that God loves. Anyone who kills a child will have to stand at the judgement seat of Christ, and give an account for what he did in this life, whether good or evil. And killing an innocent baby is evil from the devil, and will not likely be forgiven. I have LOVED both my daughters since we found out we were pregnant, and never ONCE thought of killing them for ANY reason or purpose, and they are 30 and 31 now. Oh how I love my “babies”!!

 You are such a smeghead!

Perhaps Tiller the Baby Killer was aborted, and his killer should be released.

OH MY GOD!!!  I CANNOT HAVE A CHILD!! I WOULD BE PROUD TO HAVE A CHILD WITH DOWNS AND RAISE THEM WELL IN LOVING ENVIRONMENT, SO THEY COULD FUFILL THEIR CAPABILITIES NO MATTER HOW BIG OR SMALL THOSE CAPABILITIES WERE. OH IF IT ISN’T BAD ENOUGH THAT THESE WHORES DIDN’T USE BIRTH CONTROL, THEN THEY COULDNT BE BOTHERED TO GET AN ABORTION, OR EVEN A LATE TERM ABORTION. NOW THEY WANT TO KILL THEIR INFANT. WE HAVE LAWS WHERE BITCHES LIKE THESE CAN ABANDON THEIR INFANT NO QUESTION ASKED AT A HOSPITAL, FIRE STATION, OR POLICE STATION. WHY KILL THAT INFANT,M WHEN THERE ARE WOMEN LIKE ME, WHO CANNOT HAVE A CHILD OF MY OWN, WHO FERTILITY DRUGS WONT HELP, WHO WOULD BE SO HAPPY TO ADOPT THAT BABY, AND GIVE IT TH’E LIFE THE SELFISH BITCH OF A MOTHER DOESN’T WANT THAT CHILD TO EVEN HAVE. WHAT, “IF i CAN’T HAVE YOU NO ONE CAN”? THAT’S FUCKED UP! YOU DON’T WANT YOUR BABY, FINE, SCREW YOU, THERE ARE WOMEN THAT DO!!!

Well, these are the same people that equate human life to that of weeds. So it is very clear that they feel that any life is above that of human life.

Well actually, according to liberals, it’s ok to kill infants, but not raise your chilldren the way you see best, by homeschooling, in fact, liberals want to tell you what to feed your children.

I don’t want to cancel exploration of space. But if we can’t identify life here on earth and preserve it, why are we spending billions of dollars to “seek out new life?” in outer space?

In Sparta we used to throw the weak fellers in the pit………these liberals promote the waste of good warriors?  What a shameful practice.  

You can learn more from  Alex Jones’s Infowars.com.

 You’re so right, TC. If it was ANYTHING but a HUMAN baby, the lefties would be climbing the walls and wanting to kill ANYONE who even SPOKE about harming either the baby (cub, larva, whatever) in the womb or newborn! The skewed and demonic value system of the libturds is beyond my understanding!

 No, Nichol, to me it is mostly SICK!

 Alastair, please…. Don’t try to push what you know is a total fabrication on us. ANYONE who has seen left-wing loons in action knows what you’re saying is totally untrue.

could we call euthanasia – “pre-death abortion” – that way we could kill anyone that isn’t already dead.