• Louis Vuitton Outlet
  • Tiffany Co Outlet
  • Hollister Co Outlet
  • Oakley Outlet
  • Ray Ban Outlet
  • Gucci Outlet
  • Prada Outlet
  • Michael Kors Outlet
  • North Face Outlet
  • Abercrombie & Fitch Outlet
  • Chanel Outlet
  • Canada Goose Outlet
  • Lululemon Outlet
  • PJS Jacket Outlet
  • Moncler Outlet
  • Burberry Outlet
  • Longchamp Outlet
  • Hermes Outlet
  • UGG Outlets
  • Nike Outlet
  • Jordan Outlet
  • Toms Outlet
  • New Balance Outlet
  • MBT Outlet
  • Christian Louboutin Outlet
  • All Brands Belt
  • All Jersey
  • Authentic Louis Vuitton For Cheap
  • Authentic Discounted Louis Vuitton
  • Louis Vuitton 25 Speedy
  • Louis Vuitton Australia Online Sale
  • Louis Vuitton Speedy 35 With Shoulder Strap
  • Louis Vuitton Bag Styles
  • How Can You Tell A Real Louis Vuitton Belt
  • Louis Vuitton Blue Tote
  • The Scriptorium


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

    Filed under: — Jennifer Rast @ 1:02 pm

    It was only a matter of time before the culture of death, bombarded with proof that a living child is being killed during an abortion, would have to take a new approach. Now one must be not just a human, but must be considered a “person” before you are worthy of a right to life.

    What kind of animals could slaughter a new born baby and excuse it because they don’t deem that little baby to be a person yet? Who won’t be considered a true person next? Perhaps, disabled people, or old people won’t be considered a full person. This proves, without a doubt, that they know it is murder and they just flat don’t care. We are up against serious evil in this world. What bothers me the most is that most people won’t even hear about this, until it’s too late, or they won’t care until it actually affects them.

    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.

    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.

    It’s a game of words to them. Instead of murder, they just call it after birth abortion. It’s the difference between stabbing a child in the head and suctioning out their brains two minutes earlier when they’re in the womb, or when they come out. They are just so evil and disgusting, they don’t need to hide it in the womb anymore.


    Comments are closed.