Author Topic: After birth abortion: yes, you read it right  (Read 194 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 70,754
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
After birth abortion: yes, you read it right
« on: April 21, 2014, 09:19:12 AM »

‘After Birth Abortion’ – Yes, You Read That Right
Posted by Carly Hill on April 16, 2014@CarlyDHill      

You know the world is upside down when the phrase “after birth abortion” exists.  Wondering what that means?  It means just what you think.  Killing healthy babies after they are born.

Two years ago, two bioethicists, Alberto Giubilini and Frencesca Minerva wrote a medical ethics paper with this shockingly horrible “after birth abortion” concept.

The original paper states,

“…’after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled…Both a fetus and 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…[A]ll the individuals who are not in a condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons.  Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life…”

People, this is where moral relativism has taken us.  We’ve gone from saying it’s okay to dismember and decapitate a baby, as long as it’s in its mother’s womb to saying that babies born healthy, really, aren’t people.

I have a three year old.  If I were to be home alone with her and faint or something – she’d get by for a few hours, but she can’t reach the food in the pantry.  She doesn’t know how to unlock the front door.  We’re working on 9-1-1, but pretty much, she’d be helpless after a while.  So, where would the guys who wrote this paper draw the line?  You might say, “Oh, surely they wouldn’t support killing a three year old who can at least feed herself and go to the bathroom,” but my question is, with their line of thinking, where do you draw the line?

Regular, run-of-the mill abortions show how sick we are – and what little regard we have for human life – but supporting the idea of killing healthy infants?  I’m speechless.

See – liberals who support moral relativism, who say “Love, peace, love, love, whatever works for you is what is right” think that they are being open-minded and loving, but really, they are advocates for a society void of morals.

A society void of morals becomes so numb to evil and so consumed with self, that they might suggest something unthinkable like, say, killing children.

Conservatives are the antagonists in this country right now – at least, that’s what the President will have you think.  Conservatives are made out to be the ones who are hateful and insensitive – but the people who are proposing concepts like “after birth abortion” are the same ones who are shouting that they are “bleeding hearts.”

Religious and political arguments aside — CNN recently reported on a study done by Yale that proved babies as young as 3 MONTHS OLD entertained with a puppet show featuring a “good” and “bad” character would take a cookie from the good character.  Almost 90% of infants preferred the “good” puppet and even chose to “punish” the bad puppet when they were given the chance – showing that even babies have a sense of JUSTICE.

Can you believe that?

As a Christian, I believe that humans are made in God’s image.  We are born sinners, but also with a natural sense of morality.

America was founded on religious freedom, yes, but also Biblical principles.  Read this article to see just a few quotes from our founding fathers.  They weren’t all Christians, but the majority were – and they all feared God.  They wrote out a plan for a FREE nation – one that didn’t force any religion on anyone, but one that was based on a Christian worldview.

I’m not for a forced-Christian country.  That’s ridiculous.  Politically, I say, the less government the better.  But, no matter where you stand on any issue, and no matter what you believe or who you worship, you can’t argue that Biblical morality produces the healthiest type of culture.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo