Author Topic: Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex  (Read 1443 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65,696
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex
« on: October 13, 2013, 07:16:03 AM »

This is WND printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
 To view this item online, visit http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/lefts-new-crusade-adult-kid-sex/

WND.com


PULLING NO PUNCHES

Left's new crusade: Adult-kid sex

Exclusive: Matt Barber exposes 'progressive' effort to roll-back laws against pedophilia
Published: 2 days ago
author-imageby Matt Barber Email  | Archive
Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.) "Follow Barber on Twitter.


So much for the left’s “consenting adults” rhetoric on sex. Forever the consummate conservationists, our self-described “progressive” friends at the ACLU, MSNBC and elsewhere have been ramping-up efforts to downsize from “consenting adults” to merely “consenting” – a far less cumbersome qualifier in the noble struggle for unrestrained sexual license.

Tolerating “intergenerational romance” for “minor-attracted” adults is all the rage these days.

Ever hear of Kaitlyn Hunt? Over the past year or so this poor, misunderstood lesbian woman’s “anti-gay persecution” has become a cause célèbre among “gay rights” activists and other left-wing purveyors of perversion.

Despite mass rallies and online petitions signed by hundreds-of-thousands of the uber-”tolerant,” the clearly “homophobic” Florida criminal justice system has, nonetheless, convicted Ms. Hunt of multiple felonies for sexually assaulting – repeatedly – a 14-year-old girl.

Puritans.

Oh, sure, her minor victim allegedly “consented” to what the “Free Kate” crowd has portrayed as a harmless tryst – but, of course, by law children below the age of consent cannot consent to sex with adults. Period.

Still, the “progressive” establishment evidently felt that, for whatever reason, this was their hill to die on – this was the case that might help them realize the historical “gay rights” goal of rolling-back most, if not all, age of consent laws – statutes designed to protect children from adult sexual predators like, well, Kate.

Veteran journalist Robert Stacy McCain has covered the Hunt case extensively. In a recent piece for the American Spectator headlined “Kaitlyn Hunt is guilty and, yes, there is a movement to ‘normalize pedophilia,’” McCain writes: “Kaitlyn Hunt is a criminal. We can state that as a Neutral Objective Fact, now that the 19-year-old former cheerleader has pleaded ‘no contest’ to multiple felonies related to her sexual affair with a minor. What remains is the question of what her plea in a Florida courtroom Thursday means for what Rush Limbaugh has called the movement to ‘normalize pedophilia.”‘

Here’s the answer: There is no question. There is categorically a movement to normalize pedophilia. I’ve witnessed it firsthand and, despite “progressive” protestations to the contrary, the “pedophile rights” movement is inexorably linked to the so-called “gay rights” movement.

Two years ago I – along with the venerable child advocate Dr. Judith Reisman – attended a Maryland conference hosted by the pedophile group B4U-ACT. Around 50 individuals were in attendance, including a number of admitted pedophiles (or “minor-attracted persons,” as they euphemistically prefer).

Also present were a few self-described “gay activists” and several supportive mental-health professionals. World renowned “sexologist” Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins University gave the keynote address, opening with: “I want to completely support the goal of B4U-ACT.”

Here are some highlights from the conference:
•Pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society.
•“We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child’s sexuality.”
•“Children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult.
•An adult’s desire to have sex with children is “normative.”
•“These things are not black and white; there are various shades of gray.”
•A consensus belief by both speakers and pedophiles in attendance was that, because it vilifies MAPs, pedophilia should be removed as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, in the same manner homosexuality was removed in 1973.
•Dr. Fred Berlin acknowledged that it was political activism, similar to the incremental strategy witnessed at the conference, rather than a scientific calculus that successfully led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder: The reason “homosexuality was taken out of DSM is that people didn’t want the government in the bedroom,” he said.
•The DSM ignores that pedophiles “have feelings of love and romance for children” in the same way adults love one another.
•The DSM should “focus on the needs” of the pedophile, and should have “a minimal focus on social control,” rather than obsessing about the “need to protect children.”
•Self-described “gay activist” and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be “the object of our attraction.” He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn’t gain consent from a child to have sex with “it” any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) “on or with” a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault. There was even laughter.

You may think that such abject evil simply represents the fringe of today’s sexual “progressivism.” It doesn’t. It represents the honest.

Consider, for instance, that during Obama’s first term, the official website for the Department of Health and Human Services linked to “parenting tips” that referenced children as “sexual beings” and suggested that they should experiment with homosexuality and masturbation.

You may also recall that Mr. Obama appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of the “Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network,” or GLSEN, to the post of “safe schools czar.” The position is now defunct, ostensibly due to national outrage over Jennings’ appointment.

In keeping with the thinly veiled goals of B4U-ACT, GLSEN seems to be “running interference” for pedophiles, having tacitly advocated adult-child sex through its “recommended reading list” for kids.

This of no surprise when you consider that one of Jennings’ ideological heroes was Harry Hay, the “founding father” of homosexual activism. “One of the people that’s always inspired me is Harry Hay,” he has said glowingly.

Was Harry Hay fringe? No, not among “gay” activists. He’s an icon. Again, he was just honest. In 1983, while addressing the pedophile North American Man/Boy Love Association, or NAM/BLA, Hay said the following:


“It seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAM/BLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what 13-, 14-, and 15-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need.”

If he were alive today, Harry Hay would likely have led the movement to “free Kate.”

And by “free Kate,” he would have meant – and they actually mean – “free us.”

And by “free us,” of course, what they really mean is “free children.”
Abraham Lincoln:

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.
--January 27, 1838 Lyceum Address

Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these
great and true principles.
--August 27, 1856 Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan

Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.
--July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,108
    • Auktion Online
Re: Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2013, 08:08:52 AM »
If there are enough votes and money in it, the Democrat Party will endorse anything.  What's worse?  Pedophilia or infanticide?  They already endorse the latter.  Nuff said.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 08:09:33 AM by massadvj »
"She only coughs when she lies."

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,635
  • There's no one out there quite like me.
    • Fullervision
Re: Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2013, 08:17:22 AM »
If there are enough votes and money in it, the Democrat Party will endorse anything.
That pretty much sums up the party in a nutshell: Anything for votes.
"Just because people in positions of authority are stupid, it doesn’t mean you have to go along with it." —Arlo Guthrie

"In the excitement of great popular elections, deciding the policy of the country, and its vast patronage, frauds will be committed, if a chance is given for them." —Richard Henry Dana, Jr.

Offline Charlespg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,122
Re: Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2013, 08:42:11 AM »
Quote
Also present were a few self-described “gay activists” and several supportive mental-health professionals. World renowned “sexologist” Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins University gave the keynote address, opening with: “I want to completely support the goal of B4U-ACT.”
people who endorse legitimizing pedophilia should be gassed or shot en mass
Rather Trump Then Cackles Clinton

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65,696
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Re: Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2013, 08:43:17 AM »
If there are enough votes and money in it, the Democrat Party will endorse anything.  What's worse?  Pedophilia or infanticide?  They already endorse the latter.  Nuff said.

Liberals in Britain have already started pushing for "abortion" up to two years of age so we can expect to see that here. :headbang:
Abraham Lincoln:

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.
--January 27, 1838 Lyceum Address

Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these
great and true principles.
--August 27, 1856 Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan

Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.
--July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,527
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2013, 08:48:02 AM »
Liberals in Britain have already started pushing for "abortion" up to two years of age so we can expect to see that here. :headbang:

Wait, WHAT?! When? I missed that.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Liberal_Spy

  • Guest
Re: Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2013, 10:47:24 AM »
Liberals in Britain have already started pushing for "abortion" up to two years of age so we can expect to see that here. :headbang:

Where did you hear that?

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65,696
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Re: Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex
« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2013, 05:09:17 PM »
Wait, WHAT?! When? I missed that.


I know I saw this in reference to Britain, I just can't locate it at the moment.  This does, however, show people are talking about it which means it will happen.  Ranger.

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions’ as Newborns ‘Are Not Persons’

Feb. 27, 2012 3:38pm Liz Klimas

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/27/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/
Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions

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

(Update: ‘Journal of Medical Ethics’ stands by publication of ‘after-birth abortions’ article)

Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions
Alberto Giubilini (Photo: Academia.edu)

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion” as opposed to “infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:


Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

[...]

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

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

And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.

The National Catholic Register thinks that these authors are right — once you accept their ideas on personhood. The Register states that the argument made by the ethicists is almost pro-life in that it “highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument”:


The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

First Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life,[size=14pt] notes that while this article doesn’t mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth abortions in future medical procedures, arguments such as “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious” began in much the same way in bioethics journals[/size]
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 05:19:47 PM by rangerrebew »
Abraham Lincoln:

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.
--January 27, 1838 Lyceum Address

Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these
great and true principles.
--August 27, 1856 Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan

Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.
--July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65,696
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Re: Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex
« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2013, 05:15:51 PM »
The Ethics of “After-birth Abortions”, Part 2



By: Doug Payton (Diary)  |  March 12th, 2012 at 11:08 AM  |  0

RESIZE: AAA


[Please click here for part 1, as this just picks up where that left off. Also, another blogger found the article again at a new URL on the same site. I'd searched using their advance search form with no success, but glad that it's back so people can read the whole thing.]

The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent

The authors, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, start this section with their definition of personhood.


Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

Thus, to be a person, you have to know you’re a person and be able to value it. The state of not knowing, however, lasts quite a bit beyond newborn status. The authors, again, fail to address this. More than fail to, actually, they refuse to address it, as we shall see.


Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

The equivalence here is somewhat flawed, not the least because they start to blur the moral right to life with the legal right to life. Further, they equate giving up your legal right to life (by, for example, murdering someone else) with a fetus or embryo being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Depending on your morals, all three examples have a moral right to life, it’s just in the last case it was actively forfeited.


Being human, I believe, ascribes you a moral right to life, in and of itself. Having it deprived of you, whether as an embryo being experimented on, a fetus being aborted, or being the victim of a murderer, has moral implications. The legal system has its own concept of “rights” as well, and the murderer (again, actively) gives up his legal right, while the embryo and fetus simply cannot. Therefore, by trying to conflate moral and legal rights, the authors are trying to make their case for their moral definition of personhood by comparing it to legal issues. They are not equivalent.

[I feel it necessary to explain why I, being pro-life, believe that capital punishment is still a valid punishment in certain cases. As noted, there is a great difference between government not ascribing you a legal right to life in the first place (as with an embryo or fetus in our current system of government) and you forfeiting that legal right by actively doing something. Thus, there isn't the equivalence between taking lives in these two cases that critics of pro-lifers assume there is. Further, self-defense is a legitimate cause for killing, both legally and, in many religions including Christianity, morally. I see capital punishment as "societal self-defense" to protect us from the most heinous of criminals and to discourage others from behaving likewise.]


Our point here is that, although it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a ‘person’, a necessary condition for a subject to have a right to X is that she is harmed by a decision to deprive her of X.

And this is where we step across the line into vary murky moral and ethical territory. Indeed, the authors admit, “such a condition depends on the level of her mental development, which in turn determines whether or not she is a ‘person’.” If you can justifiably be killed based on your mental capacity to realize what you’re losing, things don’t look so good for that 3-year-old with autism. If a life was not really taken, this could also become a legal defense for murder; this is not such a stretch. If we’re discussing extending the arguments (and their implications) for abortion to include “after-birth” abortion, we can extend them (and their implications) further to legal defenses, can we not?


Those who are only capable of experiencing pain and pleasure (like perhaps fetuses and certainly newborns) have a right not to be inflicted pain. If, in addition to experiencing pain and pleasure, an individual is capable of making any aims (like actual human and non-human persons), she is harmed if she is prevented from accomplishing her aims by being killed.

I find a large gap in their logic here. Let us stipulate that those who can experience pain have a right not to have pain inflicted on them, as the authors are saying. Then it follows that those who can experience life have a right not to have it take from them. Now, a fetus and a newborn may not realize that they are experiencing “life” — they may not be that self-aware — but then, do they realize that they are experiencing “pain”? Are they self-aware enough understand what pain actually is? All they know, when in pain, is that they don’t want the current experience, whatever it is. But they are not aware enough of the concept of “pain” to realize what it is, much the same way the experience of the pleasure of life itself is somewhat lost on them. In neither case are they aware of what it is they are experiencing.

Whether or not you understand what you are experiencing has no bearing on whether or not you have a right to or from it. Similarly, whether or not you understand the future prospects for that experience also have no bearing on your rights. The point is, our experience and understanding has nothing at all to do with our rights.

This even works in the legal sense as well. In America, if I don’t know or understand my “Miranda rights”, it doesn’t mean I don’t have them, nor can they be taken away from me.

This is different from animals (or, as the authors put it, “non-human persons”) because animals do not have the same innate moral rights as humans. (This does not mean it does not matter how animals are treated. God has told man to be a good steward of His creation, and few would deny some inner love for animals, particularly the cuter ones, which I believe, too, was put there by God. But they do not have the same moral rights, and thus their use as beasts of burden, for example, are not moral issues.)

Using this flawed definition of “person”, the authors then put it to use to use in their arguments for “after-birth” abortions. Having fouled up their definition, everything else from here on out fails to convince me at all.

The fetus and the newborn are potential persons


It might be claimed that someone is harmed because she is prevented from becoming a person capable of appreciating her own being alive. Thus, for example, one might say that we would have been harmed if our mothers had chosen to have an abortion while they were pregnant with us or if they had killed us as soon as we were born. However, whereas you can benefit someone by bringing her into existence (if her life is worth living), it makes no sense to say that someone is harmed by being prevented from becoming an actual person. The reason is that, by virtue of our definition of the concept of ‘harm’ in the previous section, in order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm.

With their definitions of “person” and “harm”, this all makes sense. But those definitions are extremely flawed, and thus so it their conclusion that there is no harm in killing a newborn baby. Most of this section launches from these definitions, so there is no real need to dissect it piece by piece. I will note a this passage.


The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends, is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence. Actual people’s well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of. Sometimes this situation can be prevented through an abortion, but in some other cases this is not possible. In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions.

What they argue is that a newborn has no right to life because of, in addition to all the previous arguments, the prevailing economic conditions. I understand that many abortions are done for these reasons, but I don’t consider economics a valid reason to kill a child, before or after birth. Now, I am the first to admit that I’ve never been in as dire a situation, but I hope I would stick with my principles about life over economics when the time came. (Interestingly, people like Sarah Palin, who lived their principles, seem to be castigated more on this than others. Odd, that.)

Whether or not one sticks to one’s principles is, however, not germane to the issue, which is, what moral right to life a newborn may have. And this section of the article does not persuade in the least, because it starts with assumptions that fail its own logic (or fail to be addressed).

Adoption as an alternative to after-birth abortion?

This section is summed up in one sentence from the article.


What we are suggesting is that, if interests of actual people should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption.

That is, if the biological mother might suffer stress or other psychological from letting the baby live, killing it is fine. Not to minimize the psychological health of the mother, but there is a life on the line. The authors and I would not agree on whether the infant’s life is meaningless or meaningful, so we are, again, at a disagreement.

Conclusions

After they restate their position that the criteria for “after-birth” abortions should be the same as those before birth, they point out two considerations that they wish to add.


First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

Here is where they quietly slip out altogether from the question of, having obliterated one fairly bright line, where to draw the new line. I appreciate the fact that they even brought it up, but to say “we do not suggest any threshold” is to play fast and loose with life itself. I go back to that example of a 3-year-old autistic child, and wonder where the line would be drawn. Would there be a line drawn by this society? Living your personal morality is one thing. Inflicting it on a child at the cost of his or her life is another one entirely.

This is where the charge that they are advocating infanticide comes from, in spite of their previous denial. They say that killing a newborn can be justified, they don’t say at what point it wouldn’t be, but then they protest if you call them to account on it. Whatever it is, they insist, they don’t want to label it “infanticide”. Well, call it what you want. The result is that people who want to kill their child legally will figure out a way to do it, once they get a legal imprimatur. One million abortions per year prove it.


Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical [sic], social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

I do not believe that before-birth abortions are a good alternative to adoption, and yet upwards of a million abortions have been done every single year since Roe v Wade. I don’t think that the rate would double if “after-birth” abortions became legal, but what Giubilini and Minerva would release on this society will not at all be curtailed in the least by their personal view of what’s a good alternative. Again, one million abortions per year say otherwise.

This proposal is one that completely ignores essential elements of the history of abortion in this country; namely that, as a political tool used by the Left to supposedly “empower” women, it has become virtually sacrosanct, a sacrament of the Left. It can not be calmly or logically discussed without baseless charges of misogyny or religious fundamentalism getting thrown out and discussion stops before it really starts. The Left simply will not give up the “fundamental right” to abortion-as-birth-control,which, as I’ve noted, the vast majority indeed are. What Giubilini and Minerva would do is simply extend indefinitely the time period in which “abortion” could take place, and expand the culture of death in this country and around the world.

I think they’re proposal is wrong on its face, and when you look at the details, it’s even more wrong. That is why I disagree with it in the strongest terms.

http://www.redstate.com/dpayton/2012/03/12/the-ethics-of-after-birth-abortions-part-2/
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 05:21:30 PM by rangerrebew »
Abraham Lincoln:

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.
--January 27, 1838 Lyceum Address

Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these
great and true principles.
--August 27, 1856 Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan

Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.
--July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,527
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex
« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2013, 05:30:15 PM »
Thank you, Ranger!

Interesting read.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65,696
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Re: Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex
« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2013, 05:32:46 PM »
Thank you, Ranger!

Interesting read.

You mean read (s)? :silly:
Abraham Lincoln:

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.
--January 27, 1838 Lyceum Address

Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these
great and true principles.
--August 27, 1856 Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan

Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.
--July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,527
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex
« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2013, 05:35:19 PM »
 :silly: :silly:

Plurals are kryptonite to me.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Atomic Cow

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,235
  • High Yield Minion
Re: Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex
« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2013, 06:21:41 PM »
Legal or not, if some pervert ever touched a child of mine, I would find them, hold them down, put my .45 in their mouth, and pull the trigger.

Consequences be damned.
"...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night were strange, even to the men who used them."  H. G. Wells, The World Set Free, 1914

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." -Lord Acton

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,527
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex
« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2013, 06:52:18 PM »
I wouldn't bother with a gun. Nor would the child have to be mine to get that response.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 15,939
Re: Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex
« Reply #14 on: October 14, 2013, 07:11:43 PM »
Liberals in Britain have already started pushing for "abortion" up to two years of age so we can expect to see that here. :headbang:

It's already being mentioned by followers of Peter Singer, who's advocated it for years.

If you can kill a baby in the birth canal, then why shouldn't you be able to kill a baby who's 18 months old or more?

No one should be surprised by this.

It's just the next logical step in creating a Progressive master race.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

May 3, 2016 - the day the Republican party left ME.  I am now without a Party, and quite possibly without a country.  May God have mercy!

Offline Atomic Cow

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,235
  • High Yield Minion
Re: Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex
« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2013, 07:34:09 PM »
I wouldn't bother with a gun. Nor would the child have to be mine to get that response.

But if the child is yours, the odds of a jury finding you guilty is fairly low.
"...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night were strange, even to the men who used them."  H. G. Wells, The World Set Free, 1914

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." -Lord Acton

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65,696
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Re: Left's new crusade: Adult/kid sex
« Reply #16 on: October 15, 2013, 08:13:27 AM »
It's already being mentioned by followers of Peter Singer, who's advocated it for years.

If you can kill a baby in the birth canal, then why shouldn't you be able to kill a baby who's 18 months old or more?

No one should be surprised by this.

It's just the next logical step in creating a Progressive master race.

You are sooooo correct.  Along with it will come child brides so as not to "offend" muslims. :osama:
Abraham Lincoln:

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.
--January 27, 1838 Lyceum Address

Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these
great and true principles.
--August 27, 1856 Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan

Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.
--July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf