Faith

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.”

Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions

Francesca Minerva (Photo: Academia.edu)

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, 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.

Front page carousel image courtesy: Shutterstock.com

Comments (1150)

1 2 3 ... 32
  • Crush_Liberalism
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:59pm

    Without a higher moral Source, this is what we have to guide “morality”…the opinions of men and women. Wow…what a strong moral compass – a stinking OPINION. Opinions change over time…so with a compass that has no magnetic north, all we can expect is a spinning needle.
    “The Lord knows the thoughts of man,
    That they are futile.”
    Psalm 94:11

    Report Post » Crush_Liberalism  
    • sterinn
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:14pm

      Ok- well the next pregnant woman you see that’s 4 months along, take a polaroid of her and on the bottom write, the day we aborted the “fetus.” Then when the boy/girl is born and lives to 18- show her the polaroid and say- “Well, this is the day we decided your entire life was too much of a burden for the rest of us, so we decided to “abort” you. ….record reaction of said 18yo.

      Report Post »  
    • GardenoftheGods
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:15pm

      Amen! Sounds like Murder in the 1st Degree… How low can some educated elites go? Sounds pretty darned low to me! Sad

      Report Post » GardenoftheGods  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:15pm

      Another fine example of atheism and their great moral conduct. And this is the standard and reasoning of “ethicists” in today’s society?? Their logical bottom line……if for any reason you are inconvenient and/or are not a productive member of society then you deserve to be murdered for the good of mankind. It is truly UNREAL how these people think!

      God help us and have mercy even though we are so undeserving.

      Report Post »  
    • oldguy49
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:21pm

      the trojan greeks did it…….they just left newborns out in the elements and if they survived it was the gods will

      Report Post »  
    • johnnylingo
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:27pm

      Failure to abort got us Barry Ocommie the biggest pro abortion advocate of the century.Notice all of pro abortionists are already born? What’s next ? kill all followers of Christ?

      Report Post »  
    • Dismayed Veteran
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:33pm

      I believe these two failed to become a person and aborting them is still an option.

      Report Post » Dismayed Veteran  
    • MidWestMom
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:35pm

      I don‘t believe I’ve ever heard anything as vile as what these “people” are advocating. Truly, truly scary.
      The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier

      Report Post »  
    • Twobyfour
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:36pm

      Can you say Baal? I knew you could.

      Methinks it’s ethicists that need retroactive abortion.

      Report Post » Twobyfour  
    • IronSights
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:41pm

      Interesting. This is what happens when someone is without faith in God. They measure their actions and state opinions based on “mans” standards, not answering to anyone greater than themselves. It is also a very selfish line of thinking.

      Based on their logic, if moved forward on, there will be a bunch of empty offices on capital hill. Whole bunch of them causing HUGE burden on many in society. Just my observation.

      Report Post » IronSights  
    • Unix
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:41pm

      oh really, this is ignorance not ethics. Is the seed growing underground a dead thing? you tree hugging cross-eyed amoebas say yes, don’t kill the tree. But then the question becomes, is a fertilized egg a life, but of course not, it’s just dead matter until it is born. What morons they are, such hypocrites…go ahead and vote for the party of murder you pannets, hug your glorious trees and murder innocent babies, you’ll all pay for that big mistake. Statists make me sick, for all I care stick your tyranny up your collective chuffers and give each other a reach around. pfft

      Report Post » Unix  
    • Polwatcher
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:43pm

      Liberals are disgusting. They have criminal minds. To think that a person must be considered “worthy” to live is criminal.

      Report Post »  
    • HKS
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:47pm

      Looks like the socialist are showing their true colors. Is there a worse form of human on this planet? I don’t think so. This is below the animals, even a cut below the snakes.

      Report Post » HKS  
    • Baddoggy
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:47pm

      Roe V Wade brought us legalized MURDER. It was just the beginning. You think it will stop at the third trimester? Nope. You think if they get their way it would stop at a child becomming “rational”? Hope. They wont stop until they can judge your life and kill you for whatever reason they think up.

      If the child ids a burden to a woman to the point that it causes her mental anguish, she can give it up for adoption and shoot herself in the head. The choice she has is about her life…Not the life of the CHILD!!!

      And that goes for rape and incest too. Its still MURDER!

      Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • Joshua7
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:48pm

      Exactly my thoughts.

      Report Post » Joshua7  
    • peeoui
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:58pm

      I really think this is sarcasm, honestly

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:01pm

      @COPATRIOTS

      Uh, your God sent his son to be sacrificed……THAT’S MORAL?! Give me a break. People who believe a human sacrifice was necessary to “Save our souls” is just as immoral as these freaks.

      Just because you claim some kind of divinity doesn’t take away the evilness of your thoughts and actions.

      Report Post »  
    • jhaydeng
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:04pm

      Everyone should look and see if any of these people have children! I have found that 90% do not have children!!!!!!! Do your homework it’s scary!

      Report Post »  
    • watchtheotherhand
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:11pm

      I’m going to shock many of my fellow blazers, but I couldn’t agree more with this ethicist !!!! If a fetus is not worthy of protecting and ascribing the most basic right to life then simply disconnecting that fetus from the mother should not magically ascribe those rights. That is what I have argued all along, if those rights are not present from the beginning then they are never present. They are simply carrying their demonic line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. Like many liberal ideologies when carried to their logical conclusion they are satanic and evil at their core, most however, vehemently deny this fact because they know most sane people would never swallow the kool-aid they serve up on a regular basis if those declarations were made. Liberal ideology always hides behind misinformation, twisted facts, and manipulated scenarios to even be taken seriously no other topic demonstrates this more than the area of killing babies in the womb. It has been a mission of propaganda and lies since Roe v Wade. Funny how many cringe at the thought of killing a newborn but defend tooth and nail to kill that child a few months sooner. Liberalism = Evil Insanity. It is a disease that hates life, liberty, prosperity, responsibility, accountability, authority, and truth.

      Report Post » watchtheotherhand  
    • @leftfighter
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:12pm

      Everybody realizes that it’s these same types of ethicists that will be sitting on the Complete Lives panels after Obamacare is enacted, yes?

      …and the Left makes fun of us saying the world is moving to a very dark place…

      Report Post » @leftfighter  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:19pm

      @WATCHTHEOTHERHAND

      Taking your comments to their logical conclusion leads me to think you’re a moron. Oh wow, I was right.

      Report Post »  
    • @leftfighter
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:21pm

      @ModerationIsBest

      Jesus wasn’t a human sacrifice. He was a God sacrifice.

      God didn’t send his son to be killed on the cross for our sins, God sent HIMSELF to die on the cross for our sins.

      Jesus said Himself that if he chose he had all the power in the universe o come down off the cross. God didn’t kill Jesus, neither did the Jews or the Romans. You and I did, and Jesus, knowing why it was necessary, stayed on the cross and died.

      Please feel free to shake your fist at the Good News all you like. You will still bend knee to Him and acknowledge that He is God, and then you will be judged by Him.

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2%3A9-11&version=NIV

      I pray you’re more open to the message by then- when it’ll be too late.

      Report Post » @leftfighter  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:21pm

      Ah MOD, back at your hatred of God for another day. Is this the designated start time of your shift?

      Once again, learn redemptive theology. Are you really comparing Jesus willingly coming to earth to die on the cross for our sin to atheists justifying infanticide? That’s quite a leap even for you. Just another story of your fellow fine atheist standards logic. Tell me more about the moral standard that will exist among atheists if you got your wish to have all things of God removed from society.

      Oh and MOD, MR_PROUD_CONSERVATIVE referenced someone that has an answer to every argument I have seen you attempt…..Dr. William Lane Craig. I know you aren’t really wanting to find the truth. Rather, you prefer to stay stuck in your mindset. But save this for some day later when the world causes you to re-evaluate your stance.

      http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a_archive

      Report Post »  
    • Itsjusttim
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:24pm

      It seems to me if good people are not going to stand up to do away with people who believe in doing away with live babies, then it means no one is good, and it’s just easier for God to drop a couple asteroids on earth.

      Report Post » Itsjusttim  
    • BarackStalin
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:28pm

      Right on…I’m glad somebody finally said it.

      Ancient Spartan society gave the patriarch 3 days after birth to decide whether or not the child’s life should be aborted. If he thought the child would be a detriment to society, then they “exposed” the child meaning they left him/her on the hillside to die.

      Sound barbaric? How is aborting a child out of convenience any different?

      Besides…right now ONLY WOMEN CAN KILL BABIES…that’s discrimination. If they move the age limit for late-term abortions up to 18 years after birth, then MEN CAN KILL THEIR CHILDREN TOO.

      Equality is important in today’s society, don’t you know.

      And what’s the difference between an abortion and an honor killing, really?

      It might make some feel better to think of BABIES as TUMORS…but that logic won’t fly with your higher power when you reach the pearly gates.

      Report Post » BarackStalin  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:39pm

      @LEFTFIGHTER

      Ugh

      God sent himself, as his son, to die on the cross, as a human, yet he wasn’t human, he was God…just as a human….as God…human…God…Holy Spirit…God, three persons…in one…trinity…of one thing blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

      The fact is, without the people CRUCIFYING him, he wouldn’t have DIED for our SINS.

      Your belief system is a sick joke founded by Judaism…..which stole their beliefs from other beliefs that existed around that time….and just made a story that fit them.

      Report Post »  
    • Kankokage
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:44pm

      Any species which willingly destroys its offspring for any perceived benefit to the parents or to the existing members of the species as a whole unwittingly consigns itself to self-imposed extinction.

      To jump in late into the theological debate, God did not destroy his Son. His Son allowed himself to be killed for the sake of the entire species, knowing that death could not defeat him. It was a choice that He made, not one forced upon him by society or even God. He made the choice. How does a newborn baby make the choice to die by the hands of a selfish parent? There is no equivalency, and to try and make equivalency is not only dishonest, it is very unintelligent.

      This is the fallacy of the atheist argument that man can be good without God. When man becomes God by subversion, whatever man wishes to be good is therefore good. There is no moral code of the cosmos, no divine law of the earth, only the will of man. Once you eliminate the morality based on a power greater than ourselves, morality becomes plastic and moldable, having no firm set and having no guarantee. Rights become allowances at the hands of those with power, and life becomes as meaningless as death.

      Report Post » Kankokage  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:45pm

      Don’t for one instant believe that this is “fringe” or isolated thought among the academic leftist elite. This is something they’ve contemplated for decades. Obama’s own Czar of Science John Holdren in his book “Ecoscience” embraces similar goals:
      • Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
      • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
      • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
      • 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.
      • A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
      The academic leftist elite don’t place value on humanity. Humanity is an enemy to them.
      Euphemisms are important to them in order to erode conscience. “Fetus” and “Blastocyst” instead of baby. “After-birth abortion” instead of murder.
      This is why the left seeks to remove religion. Religion is a cornerstone of conscience. Conscience is a barrier to leftist goals.

      Report Post »  
    • ChiefGeorge
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:55pm

      Pretty soon it will be old people are putting the family under to much of a burden…you know, those around retirement age, lost their job, lost their homes due to all the hardships out there, now they must ask their kids for help or worse yet rely on the state. Nope, gonna have to put them down, its the ethical thing to do. Then pretty soon it will be those other grown children with mental illness and no future value or use to the society. Then it will be those people who will not contribute to the society but only give financial resources to their chosen churches, temples etc.

      Report Post » ChiefGeorge  
    • Nehemiah6.3
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:59pm

      i can’t even comment on this atrocity. I know these people are murderers in their hearts. And God will treat them as such. They are completely spiritually dead.

      Report Post » Nehemiah6.3  
    • BarackStalin
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:08pm

      Chief, you forgot the people who dare to disagree with THE GREAT LEADER or THE PARTY…

      Because progress begins with dragging 25 million people into the streets and shooting them, don’t you know?

      Report Post » BarackStalin  
    • M 4 Colt
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:12pm

      Well before they are able to murder any baby’s in my family they better hope they have found a cure for lead poisoning! Because they will be in for a SEVERE case of lead poisoning if they come anywhere near my family.

      Report Post »  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:14pm

      might makes right.so your life is only as valuable as your ability to cajole others that it is of value. if you have the ability to justify your existence to others[you're smart enough or appealing enough to others] then your life suddenly has value-if you’re not good at convincing others -it doesn’t.This turns us into unethical beings;where we are at the mercy of the whims of others.Survival of the fittest-justify your existence before we the strong grant you a right to your very already existent self.a return to the law of the jungle -the antithesis of the ethical-do unto others.This makes us less human -not more fully human.beyond appalling and i fear otherwise civilized decent seeming people willing to kill defenseless innocent live human beings cause they don’t want them around.

      Report Post »  
    • 3monkeysmomma
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:14pm

      Actually, I’m totally onboard! Democrats are largely a burden on their families and society in general, therefor, we should just be able to “off them” rather than grant them personhood.

      (and I’m being absurd of course)

      Report Post » 3monkeysmomma  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:31pm

      OLDGUY…it was the Spartans. They also encouraged killing their slaves (helots) as part of their military training and pederasty (men having sex with young boys) in their military schools. I don’t believe this is something we want to embrace do you?

      Report Post »  
    • Madmadgrandma
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:34pm

      If there is no God…there are no rules.

      I’m so upset by this Administration “forcing and mandating and decreeing”…His “necesarily skyrocketing” garbage is just that…GARBAGE!

      Babies killed or left to dehydrate after an abortion with no comforts…will never be anything more than “Infanticide”…and the only one using the word is The Statesman…Gingrich. He wins my vote.

      Report Post »  
    • FreedomPurveyor
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:34pm

      The war on religion must succeed for this type of reasoning to prevail.

      Report Post » FreedomPurveyor  
    • proudinfidel54
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:39pm

      DISMAYED VETERAN, lol I was going to say that….who knows after a few years of killing newborns some congressman will come from work and find out little Johnny is in trouble again, so he introduces a bill to bump up the legal termination age to 8 yrs old,or maybe, Dad lost his job today, sorry kids, you know what that means.

      Report Post » proudinfidel54  
    • dissent
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:41pm

      Liberals don’t qualify for “person” status… After all, they don’t contribute to their own existence.

      I suppose this is probably the next thing the left will push for, babies in utero aren’t enough for their serial killer-like lust for the blood of children anymore, so now we should go after kids aged 0-10 as well. I say, give the mother an axe, and let her do it herself if that’s what she wants. The father has 1 week to respond to the mother’s actions with any response he sees fit…

      Report Post »  
    • keepthefaith
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:42pm

      EVIL! EVIL! EVIL! Wow!

      Report Post » keepthefaith  
    • proudinfidel54
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:42pm

      A worse nightmare scenereo then killing babies, having these two clowns as your parents…AAAHHHH!!!!

      Report Post » proudinfidel54  
    • FreedomPurveyor
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:51pm

      Be careful about dismissing this as stupidity. The logic is sound without the presence of religious compunction. This line of thinking will thrive as we degenerate into a nation with no spiritual core.

      Report Post » FreedomPurveyor  
    • Hayabusa
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:59pm

      Let’s go take some endangered bird or turtle eggs and smash them and see how quick the government and leftists are to proclaim they are actually birds and turtles and not mere fetuses. Let’s do the same to newly hatched endangered chicks and turtles and see if the point about a mass of cells still plays.

      Levin has always said that liberalism is a mental disorder and I always took it as an exaggeration but I’m starting to see his point.

      Report Post » Hayabusa  
    • ashestoashes
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 7:00pm

      God spoke to Jeremiah the Prophet and said..Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations (JER 1:5)
      Eph 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love…but I believe that the only ones he addresses here are the elect.
      So if God chose His elect..before the foundations of the world..and knew them before they were formed in the womb..then his elect will be born..This tells me that life does not began in he womb..that we had life before coming into bodily form..We are only here in earth suits.
      As I understand..the Jews do not believe that the body lives until the drawing of the first breath..probably based on when God formed Adam and breathed life into him.

      Report Post »  
    • Dstarr55
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 7:03pm

      I agree with Watchtheotherhand – if, as liberals proclaim, a fetus has no rights, then it is easy to reject the idea of personhood to a new born baby. An infant is still dependent on the mother for life. The argument was stated in the extreme by Adrienne Zurub as well as others who call a fetus a parasite. If personhood is based on independence, or the ability to take care of yourself, then you can rationalize killing anyone that depends on others, such as those that are handicap, mentally retarded, autistic, infants, toddlers. This slippery slope can then move on to those that don’t contribute enough to the society – the uneducated, the poor, the criminal.

      What these ethicists (and I do use that term sarcastically) is advocating is what the Germans actually did in WWII. I would hope (but I would not bet) they would not argue the Holocaust was ethical yet this path they dare to step upon has already been tread upon – by the Nazis.

      Report Post »  
    • Uranium Wedge
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 7:10pm

      May God help us.

      Report Post » Uranium Wedge  
    • hereandnow
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 7:11pm

      Clever, Clever, Clever… these (2) Ethicists. They put the issue right out in the open for all to see. If it is alright to abort a fetus up and through to partial birth (and/or infanticide), then just where do the pro-choice (pro-abortionists) determine that a life is “justifiable personhood”.

      We take the time to protect an eagles egg , and even a marsh mouse or a snail through laws of endangerment and wetlands, but we can’t protect our own human life.

      It is sad and unfortunate that we as a society have allowed (and/or encouraged) women to be the judge and jury of the life within and have accepted that men are not and have no responsibility in the taking of our indefensible lives. Roe vs Wade was wrong, and both men and women need to take accountability for this great injustice. All life is precious… period!

      Report Post »  
    • Grey Eagle
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 7:12pm

      The idiots writing this stupidity should be run out of the group on a rail. Sounds like their Mom dropped them on their heads. What they are suggesting is murder.

      Report Post »  
    • poorrichard09
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 7:15pm

      I have a better idea: all of these people who are so in love with abortion should commit suicide-sort of a retro-active abortion. Why not??

      Report Post »  
    • TriforcePlayer
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 7:15pm

      Let God be true and every man a liar.

      Report Post » TriforcePlayer  
    • MadinIllinois
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 7:19pm

      If anyone truly believes this – then they have completely lost their soul, their humanity and are truly mad! For only a person who believes in not protecting our “most innocent”, those that are unable to protect themselves, would even consider this as an “intellectual option”. Once MURDER becomes so easy, so ordinary – then it spreads – to our young and old, our sick, our homeless – to anyone that is seen as a BURDEN to society and unproductive! It’s a death sentence for our country – and our world – and I am truly ashamed, remorseful and fearful for my children that this is the world that they will inherit. God help us all!!!

      Report Post »  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 7:31pm

      This is what happens once “Chrisitians” accept the killing of a human inside the womb whether through chemical means (birth control pills) or surgical means (abortion) Both are the taking of a human life, one is not worse than the other, both are murder. Many “Christians” who call themselves “saved” are in favor of birth control, sterilization, IVF and even abortion. All of the “Christians” in favor of artificial birth control please answer this one question: When does God impart the immortal soul to a human being? 1 – Only after the baby attaches to the uterus? 2 – Only after the baby is 3 months old? 3 – Only after the baby is 6 months old 6 – Only after the baby is 9 months old 7 – At the exact moment the baby is passing through the birth canal. 8- only after the baby has completely passed through the birth canal and made it’s first sound. 7- only after the baby has passed through the birth canal, made it‘s first sound and opened it’s eyes. 8 – only after the baby has passed through the birth canal, made its first sound, opened it‘s eyes and spoken it’s first word. 9 – At conception. To all of the self proclaimed “saved” Christians who are in favor of artificial birth control how do you get around this fact? The reason I ask this question is the “right to life” stems on this fundamental question, when does life begin? For “Christians” life begins at conception and yet many “Christians” are ok with destroying an embryo (fertilized egg) …

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • Macman1138
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 7:35pm

      This is the Brave New World of the Liberals.

      Report Post » Macman1138  
    • Marci
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 7:51pm

      Is it me or is it almost like this whole thing is mocking the late abortion fans? They are basically saying it‘s okay to murder an infant as they aren’t a real person yet and that they are not a real person without contributing to society. How can they contribute if never allowed to grow into adulthood? Sick.

      Report Post » Marci  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 7:52pm

      They are right about one thing. There is no difference in killing a newborn and one that is still in its mother’s protective womb.

      Of course, they don’t understand both are MURDER. God designed a mother’s womb to protect the unborn. NOT simply to “store” them until they are “ripe!”

      Utterly disgusting.
      Yep, there’s “progress” for you!!!
      The progressive mind is a terrible thing…

      That’s it. It’s just a terrible thing.

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • Thomas
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 8:04pm

      Lets start with those who say after birth abortions are alright.

      Report Post » Thomas  
    • watchtheotherhand
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 8:12pm

      Moderationisbest ……..is demonstrating his open minded liberal acceptance of differing points of view again. And I so wanted someone of his mentality to hold me in high regard, oh well. I will consider an insult from someone with such a twisted brain and reasoning ability as a compliment because heaven knows I would never want acceptance or praise from someone such as yourself ! You are like most any liberal I have debated. No substance, full of anger and bitterness and resentment. A truly miserable person inside, yet I‘m sure your pride won’t let you do anything but reply with an aggressive insistence to the contrary. Your not unique or shocking your just simply a sad case.

      Report Post » watchtheotherhand  
    • FormerLib
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 8:22pm

      Of course new born babies are persons. Any idiot knows this. But we also know that an ignorant, self-loathing freak minority thinks otherwise. But why give them a platform like this to broadcast their idiocy? It only serves to legitimize their viewpoint as somehow being important, serious and weighty. It is none of these things. But stuff like this starts to gel in the mainstream when it is taken seriously.

      Report Post »  
    • Bub47
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 8:32pm

      By this logic we could abort most of Detroit

      Report Post »  
    • Theheartofanartist
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 8:38pm

      Good comment! So true!

      Report Post »  
    • robert
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 8:42pm

      “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’ ”

      It’s almost unimaginable that there are people like these fools in the world today who would regard the murder of an innocent baby…already born into this world….. as justifiable and a good idea in some cases.

      A better idea would be mass neutering of those who think it’s o.k. to kill children, but I‘ll be they’d be at the front of the pack screaming how horrible such an option would be, just as they would be walking back and forth with signs held high at the prison where a murderer was being executed for a heinous and brutal killing.

      Report Post »  
    • EZDOZIT
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 8:46pm

      Liberalism will get you killed!

      Report Post »  
    • Buck Shane
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 8:46pm

      Then, can we get Nancy Pelosi in on this after birth abortion thing?

      Report Post » Buck Shane  
    • puravida56
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 8:54pm

      @copatriots- dont blame this drivel on athiesm. Just because I do not believe in an invisible guy who sacrifices himself to himself doesn’t mean I support this sick crap. Remember, it was god that murdered all of the first born males in egypt.

      God was as sick as these ‘ethicists’ . How does one even get that title?

      Report Post » puravida56  
    • Sparky101
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 9:01pm

      So Alberto and Francesca, are you saying that since we’ve discovered after your birth, that you both are as stupid as rocks, that it’s okay for me to ki ll you?

      Report Post »  
    • Mitch54
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 9:09pm

      Lets perform a “after-birth abortion“ on these 2 dummies!

      Report Post »  
    • FreedomPurveyor
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 9:15pm

      You cannot make a moral argument against this while in the same sentence uttering death wishes.

      Report Post » FreedomPurveyor  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 9:30pm

      Perhaps you could also benefit from Dr. Craig since you question God’s morality. Your argument is of the same answer found here:

      http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

      However, you’re correct to some degree, PURAVIDA. It’s not really atheism so much as it their willful disbelief in God making them susceptible to satanic attack thereby allowing these “ethicists” to endorse murdering babies. How will you atheists ever agree whose thoughts should prevail?

      Report Post »  
    • amdoktor
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 9:33pm

      These two have no moral compass. I’m not for any abortions, unless a mother’s life is at stake. If you knew these two would believe the way they do, would that be enough for their after life abortion?

      Report Post » amdoktor  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 9:37pm

      @WATCHTHEOTHERHAND

      I’m not a liberal, sorry to burst your bubble. Unless by liberal you mean, everybody who doesn’t fit your idea of a “conservative” then I guess I’m a liberal?

      I just said that these guys are freaks, I also said anybody who believes a human sacrifice is necessary is a freak.

      I am personally against abortion, I wouldn‘t choose it and wish people wouldn’t choose it. I think time would be better be spent at trying to change the minds of people instead of trying to force a top down government ban. Much like everything else, the Government sucks at putting a stop to things.

      I am very fiscally conservative in the way I live my life, and am more of a social conservative but I do have some liberal leaning social aspects.

      All that being said, you will continue to view me as a “liberal” who “hates Christians” because it is human nature to play the victim card and to feel like your actions and beliefs are being “targeted.”

      As I keep saying, the Republican party and their current crop of candidates seem intent on driving away every non fundamentalist Christian from their party. It is why they will lose the general election this year.

      They would be wise to find a sane candidate to run in 2016.

      While you would be surprised to find out how much we actually agree on, you will continue to push me away and drive me out of your party. I have never once voted Democrat, but that doesn’t mean I am in the tank for the Republicans.

      Report Post »  
    • RepubliCorp
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 9:41pm

      Progressive Eugenics….. It’s back & the green movement is a big part of it.
      http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/

      Report Post » RepubliCorp  
    • SgtB
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 9:41pm

      I don’t think these guys are saying anything new. It is obvious that alot of people believe that a human does not gain the right to life or even become human until birth. If you have read any of my post on abortion, you would know that I don’t fall into that category of persons. Anyway, if we as a society can find it to be legal and not completely morally objectionable to kill a 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 month old “fetus” for the “well being” of the mother, then how is it any less objectionable to kill an infant. Hell, why not murder a 4 year old or a third grader?

      The reality of this narrow view of when a HUMAN fetus becomes human is that it will always be supported upon the crutch that a human which cannot live on its own is a parasite and it may be killed to better the life of the host. Now, this can be taken to either extreme and it will continue to do so. It will be pulled ever closer to the moment of conception on one extreme as science and medicine become more capable of saving premature infants and another group will take it the other way to say that it is fine to kill children.

      That said, anyone who cannot see the fallacy of this argument that it is EVER okay to kill another human being for your convenience is evil. Further, if it weren’t for my last statement, I would advocate the killing of all people who thought otherwise. That said, If a person does actually kill another for their own convenience, that act can be considered criminal and punishment worthy

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 9:42pm

      @COPATRIOTS

      I have responded to you 3 or 4 times, but the blaze doesn’t show it.

      Once again you assumed incorrectly about my “search for truth.” I have listened to arguments made by Dr. Craig, he has made good points for and not so good of points.

      However; unlike most people I think that Craig has gone out of his way to make the point that while these are evidences for a God, it doesn’t PROVE a God, much less a specific God. He deals with belief where most people of faith deal as FACT.

      ASHe and I had a discussion about the usual arguments Craig makes, sorry you missed it.

      Report Post »  
    • voiceofreason305
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 9:46pm

      I don’t know what to think about topics like this. In nature, all the majestic living things you see do not support any living thing that does not have the potential to support itself. Nature aborts herself everywhere, all the time. The Idea of god given liberties was only a constitution among men that they would now agree in consensous that every man could chose his own destiny as long as he didn’t harm anyone physically, spiritually or mentally. Should these have been a God given liberty not armies, laws ,courts nor government would have been needed to defend it. Reason is not bound by consensus. The us constitution is in itself progressive, yet weeds have grown up around us that wars will never solve. I consider we may in fact be flowering, seed soon to fall to the soil with the hope of being worthy to continue on.

      Report Post »  
    • ThankBabyJesus
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 9:47pm

      thank you

      Report Post » ThankBabyJesus  
    • absolutelynot
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 9:52pm

      These rules also apply to older people yall

      Report Post »  
    • mikem1969
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 9:54pm

      The libs and progressives get lower every single day. So by their logic since they want to act like inhuman crap, I say we abort them all since they are not people.

      Report Post »  
    • lukerw
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 10:24pm

      Someone’s singing: the SS Marschiert song!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • think4change
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 10:27pm

      Okay, does anyone understand the study of ethics? If society deems a fetus as a non person then is a baby considered a person? So if a fetus is a person then a baby is a person and to kill either is murder. However if a fetus isn‘t a person then maybe a baby isn’t and hence the article. Come on people think! if anything this articles is more pro-life then pro-choice. Did anyone bother to read the orginal article

      Report Post »  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 10:34pm

      FreedomPurveyor
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 9:15pm
      You cannot make a moral argument against this while in the same sentence uttering death wishes.
      ———
      You’re reasoning a lot like Albutt and Franpoop there. They seem incapable of grasping even elementary differences between two actions. For example, they can’t tell the difference between killing a newborn — who has done no wrong in his short lifespan — and sentencing a murderer to death. So they use the latter to argue in favor of the former — a classic example of a false analogy.

      Here’s my highly moral point: Anyone who says it is all right to kill a newborn and calls it “science” deserves, nay, REQUIRES an equally categorical counterargument, to wit, “Why the newborn? Why not you?”

      Report Post »  
    • Paul
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 10:41pm

      Pure %100 Evil, If People See This Any Other Way…

      They Are Beyond Evil….

      I Feel Dirty Just Living In This World In These Last Days…….

      Tic Toc.

      Report Post » Paul  
    • FreedomPurveyor
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 10:59pm

      “For example, they can’t tell the difference between killing a newborn — who has done no wrong in his short lifespan — and sentencing a murderer to death.”

      Sentencing a murderer to death is different from saying that people whom we disagree with should die.

      Report Post » FreedomPurveyor  
    • Ruler4You
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 11:21pm

      Technically, no child of God “IS” a ‘PERSON’. A ‘PERSON “IS” a fabrication in Law. An ‘Entity’. Not a living man or woman created by God as man or woman.

      According to Blacks Law Dictionary a PERSON a Person is a Roman invention that comes from the Latin word Persona, which means mask. Black‟s refers to Human Beings as Monsters that have no property rights.

      An ‘entity’ “IS” created by a fiction. And as such “IS” contracted to a jurisdiction of ‘government.’

      A creation of God has no accountability to anyone except God and himself. For man created man or woman by God “IS” in His image and answers to man. For all men ARE created equal. For you to be subject to another man you would have to agree to becoming the SURETY by contract.

      A contract “IS” a tool of an entity. A fiction. As children of God the Creator we are real, not a fiction. Nations are fictions. Governments are fictions. Companies are fictions. Savvy?

      The report “IS” fundamentally correct. This new born “IS” NOT a ‘PERSON’, but a man created by God man or woman. Since there “IS” no record in history of a ‘PERSON’ coming out of a woman’s womb, it isn’t likely that it has happened here either.

      But the concept that because the baby isn‘t a ’PERSON’ and that “IS” a reason adequate to kill it, seems paradoxical to say the least.

      Report Post » Ruler4You  
    • jb.kibs
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 11:22pm

      one thing i believe would be good is … no one should be allowed to hold office if they do not have children. why do we want a bunch of single losers trying to make laws regulating child services, etc… these people are pervs and creeps who are lonely and have nothing better to do but ruin and control the lives of people they wish they were. end of discussion.

      the moment an egg is germinated it begins to live. just because it needs nurturing to exist does not mean it is magically “not human”… you are a great thinker huh? think again…

      snuffing any human life is murder, no matter if it was just germinated or laying there crying, unless it was in self defense.

      Report Post »  
    • hfosteriii
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 11:34pm

      LOL! I think we have the first two candidates for post-birth abortion! This is what that slippery slope all the libs tell you “isn’t true and could never happen” looks like! Who decides who is “a burden”? That argument can become very arbitrary and loosely defined. It all depends on who is in power!!!

      Report Post »  
    • hfosteriii
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 11:44pm

      Posted by Polwatcher
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:43pm

      “Liberals are disgusting. They have criminal minds. To think that a person must be considered “worthy” to live is criminal.”

      And yet Libs don’t want to execute criminals that have forfeited their rights by denying someone else theirs!

      Report Post »  
    • Ruler4You
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 11:54pm

      “ethicists” in this case are OBVIOUSLY “Eugenics Specialists” or “Genocidal Consultants” and needed to change their work description to ethicists from what could have been Obangos obangocare death panels, Planned Parenthood.

      But what ever it “IS” (its murder IMHBLO) ethicists “IS” the LAST thing you could call such men or women.

      Report Post » Ruler4You  
    • its_time_to_arrest_our_government
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:02am

      people who think like this should be aborted no matter how old they are. it takes a very sick person to think killing a baby is okay. this is the sickness that needs to be wiped from the face of the earth.

      Report Post »  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:33am

      @ Moderationisbest: You wrote—- “Just because you claim some kind of divinity doesn’t take away the evilness of your thoughts and actions.”
      ___________

      Be Careful. That‘s DANGEROUSLY close to unforgivable if you’re implying God is evil.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
    • Puddle Duck
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:45am

      This reeks of early 20th century psuedoscience called “eugenics” which was supported among progessives as a way to advance the human condition through genetic selction…in other words the slection of those worthy of reproduction while denying those they deem unworthy or doing so. The most notorious distortion of this fabian/progressive pet science was perpetrated through various laws set forth in Nuremberg under the Nazis which led to the eventual targeting of certain undesirable races as “sub human” (Jews and Slavs) fot only for extermination.

      Margaret Sanger was a big supporter of the classice form of eugenics but she also had some rather rascist attitudes towards blacks in the USA (and elsewhere). Rascism was and is part and parcel of the eugenics mindset…it has to be by desighn otherwise how could you selct who was fit for breeding and who who be excluded from it ? Genetic manipulation in today’s world is a refined version of eugenics IMO…it’s a slippery slope that we should avoid at all cost if we can manage to keep the progressives and elitists at bay. It‘s Interesting to note that early propenets of the new science were noe other than Charles Darwin’s son, Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Himmler, Hilter, Goebels, Eichmann, Goering, Theodore Roosevelt, Marie Stopes, H G Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Jihn Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling, Sidney webb…among other notables…

      Report Post » Puddle Duck  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:50am

      @JJ COOLAY

      Well since I don’t think God exists, he therefore couldn’t be evil.

      However; if your God did exist, he certainly wouldn’t be good and exhibits more evil characteristics then good.

      The way religious people describe him and his actions, he certainly sounds evil to me.

      Report Post »  
    • Texas.7
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:36am

      WATCHTHEOTHERHAND, you are so right, they are finally being honest that they don’t mind killing a “child, um baby, ah fetus… what are we calling it these days?” Evil is unmasking but people are so hypnotized that they don’t even recognize evil when it stands before them.

      This is a particularly disturbing article, yet Satan has always sought to kill, and seems to relish small, helpless children. As Moloch/Baal, in Pharaoh, in Herod, in the Marxist eugenics- his hatred for humanity has been evident from the start. Pharaoh (to kill Moses), Herod (to kill Jesus), Peter Singer (because his moral code allows) and their father Satan- killing young up to two years (Millennial Years? The Body of Christ)

      Rachael again weeps for her children! But we have the prophesied Passover Lamb, who painted a Door through the veil with His own blood- making a Way with His own flesh, so that we can escape this land of bondage alive! And His Spirit is with us here too- a guiding pillar of fire shining in the darkness.

      We can know Him and be secure, even boldly sharing with others the love we have received. The harvest is near. Trust the Lord. Not with platitudes, but in truth. Believe that love has come to the Earth for all who will receive it, and His name is Jesus. And His is our hope.

      Report Post »  
    • Joanne
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:39am

      ModerationIsBest said: “Uh, your God sent his son to be sacrificed……THAT’S MORAL?! Give me a break. People who believe a human sacrifice was necessary to “Save our souls” is just as immoral as these freaks. Just because you claim some kind of divinity doesn’t take away the evilness of your thoughts and actions.”

      Let me try to explain what you obviously don’t understand. Scripture does say ‘God sent His Son’ but what you don’t realize is that His Son came of His OWN volition. ‘God’ was (and is) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit…. was so before Jesus birth and is so now (and will be for eternity). Before Jesus became human He was ‘the Word’ and existed as a spirit. There has ALWAYS been and will always BE a trinity. The Word LEFT Heaven (His realm) and came down to the level of man, to be born as a baby by being the spark of life within Mary’s womb (he literally entered and JOINED WITH her egg) and lived as a man/God for 33 years. HE Himself came and LIVED to lay His life down as our Sacrifice. Since the Word WAS God (and IS God) scripture is correct in stating that ‘God so loved the world that He sent His only Son’. In other words God put HIMSELF into Mary’s seed. No man took Jesus’ life. Jesus GAVE His life FOR man.

      Report Post » Joanne  
    • Joanne
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:40am

      To finish my comment in response to ‘ModerationIsBest’:

      For the record WE (Christians) do NOT ‘claim divinity’. We claim JESUS as divine (as He certainly is). We also claim eternal life WITH our Lord after this mortal life is ended. We will become ‘like’ Jesus and reside where He resides bur WE will never ‘be divine’. Only God is divine! So you see your perception is extremely flawed. You might want to LEARN what we actually believe before posting such drivel. At the same time you might want to rethink your beliefs. The simple truth (and it IS SIMPLE truth) is that YOU can also be saved from an eternity separated from God. That gift was made available to ALL human life when Jesus laid down his OWN life and was raised from the dead, which took away deaths ‘hold’ on man (IF they believe). It’s really a wonderful promise so don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it.

      Report Post » Joanne  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:45am

      @FreedomPurveyor
      Sentencing a murderer to death is different from saying that people whom we disagree with should die.
      ——–
      I don’t think anybody here is saying that. We are countering these quacks’ outrageous argument. They give a subjective premise and conclude that newborns can be killed. We are (each in our own way) turning their argument back on them. I for example changed one word in their premise to posit an equally absurd and subjective premise whereby it is they who would be murdered. Is winning an argument to protect newborns too immoral for you? Beat your chest, then.

      Report Post »  
    • Mil Mom
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 3:08am

      @This is proof that Who provides the education IS of major importance, If you take God and His commandments and Values out of education, you’re standing in quicksand! If After birth abortions are allowed (legal) WHAT DO WE DO WITH EVERY PARENT WHO HAS EVER KILLED THEIR KIDS NO MATTER THEIR AGE(S)? How do we set the limit. It’s [AFTER BIRTH] WHETHER THEY’RE A FEW WEEKS, MONTHS, YEARS, OR EVEN “FOUR SCORE” (TO BORROW A TERM FROM PRES LINCOLN) .
      Please God, give us a President Santorum, and THEN GUIDE HIM IN RESTORING THIS NATION TO WHAT YOU GUIDED OUR FOREFATHERS TO ESTABLISHING!

      Report Post » Mil Mom  
    • Joanne
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 3:11am

      watchtheotherhand said: “I’m going to shock many of my fellow blazers, but I couldn’t agree more with this ethicist !!!!”

      I completely agree with you that this is actually THE argument AGAINST abortion (or for it depending on what ‘truth’ people ascribe to). I’ve often written asking if a newborn (in an incubator), if that baby’s mother decides after giving birth that she make a mistake and no longer wants her baby to live (for what EVER reason) should it be legal for her to instruct her doctor to open that ‘artificial womb’ and rib her baby apart or pour acid on it so as to kill it or sever it’s spine as is allowed in a partial birth abortion. If abortion is allowable then WHY shouldn’t it be legal to reach into an incubator and kill an infant?

      Of COURSE most (normal) people would be appalled at that thought and rightfully so. BUT . . . my point is that with medical technology having become so advanced that a 2 lb preemie can be born and brought to maturity IN an incubator (an ARTIFICIAL WOMB) and should (rightfully so) be PROTECTED there, that SAME infant (NOT considered an infant by those in favor of abortion) MUST LOGICALLY be protected while IN THE NATURAL WOMB. If it is protected BY LAW and has the right to live in an artificial womb outside of the mother then it ALSO has THE LEGAL RIGHT, indeed the MORAL right to be protected BY LAW while within the ACTUAL womb. It’s the SAME baby but simply in a DIFFERENT womb and could NOT survive it

      Report Post » Joanne  
    • Kathleen
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 3:12am

      %$#&ing Evil @#(%!s

      Report Post »  
    • A MERICAN
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 3:14am

      Wat to bad that these fools‘ parents didn’t feel the same way. Obviously they are good for nothing. I find it nastily ironic that these are the kinds of people that “preach tolerance”. They will also tell you about the ***** “religion of peace”. A mind IS a terrible thing to waste.

      Report Post »  
    • A MERICAN
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 3:15am

      Way to bad that these fools‘ parents didn’t feel the same way. Obviously they are good for nothing. I find it nastily ironic that these are the kinds of people that “preach tolerance”. They will also tell you about the ***** “religion of peace”. A mind IS a terrible thing to waste.

      Report Post »  
    • Mil Mom
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 3:33am

      @ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:01pm

      @COPATRIOTS

      Uh, your God sent his son to be sacrificed……THAT’S MORAL?! Give me a break. People who believe a human sacrifice was necessary to “Save our souls” is just as immoral as these freaks.

      Just because you claim some kind of divinity doesn’t take away the evilness of your thoughts and actions
      ***
      This is a little hard to envision, but try to follow me here, (Just read along to see if I’m wacky or not!) in the Book of John, verse 30, Chapt 10 Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” In the beginning of this book of the Bible, it says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS GOD! All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made. (1:1-3) He’s saying that the Word, is the Promise made to Eve, come to life, as Jesus. He‘s one of God’s Personalities, just like you’re your parents son or daughter, Spouse’s husband or wife, and friend’s friend, because we’re mortal and not gods, we can’t separate these personalities, but because Jesus IS GOD, AND DIVINE, HE COULD. Therefore the Father didn’t send his son to be killed, but God, sent one personality of Himself. (ask someone who speaks Hebrew what Jehushuah [long form of Jesus] Means. Answer: God sends Himself to Save!)

      Report Post » Mil Mom  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 4:09am

      @hfosteriii
      This is what that slippery slope all the libs tell you “isn’t true and could never happen” looks like!
      ——
      Those words jogged my memory. Condoning infanticide is not new; all these deathicists have done to make big waves is change the wording. Remember the case of the Canadian woman who strangled her newborn and then threw him over the fence into her neighbor’s back yard? Women in Canada are allowed to murder their newborns under their unenforced “infanticide law”:
      http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/now-normalizing-infanticide/
      http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2011/09/infanticideabortion_connection.html

      Report Post »  
    • Joanne
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 4:45am

      Again…to finish my last post (wish we were allowed more comment space):

      It’s the SAME baby but simply in a DIFFERENT womb and could NOT survive itself, on it’s own outside the womb.

      And I have to add how disgusting it is that we should, as a society, find it NECESSARY to discuss such an indescribably EVIL and DISGUSTING subject! How sad that the enemy has convinced some people that they are no better than animals and should consider their pre-born and apparently even ‘post born’ children worthy of discarding like so much garbage. At LEAST garbage can feel no pain, which can NOT be said for the unborn and CERTAINLY the baby already brought into this world. I pray that the God of all creation comes SOON and puts the evil loose in this world in the chains it deserves to be contained within. COME SOON Lord Jesus!

      Report Post » Joanne  
    • Anonymouse.
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:01am

      This just another example of the red meat type of stories Beck’s staff cherry picks to throw to you evangelical nutters. Here, read a real piece of news that destroys the delusional belief that the earth is only 6000 years old.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17179608

      BTW, here’s where George Stephanopoulos lives. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

      Report Post » Anonymouse.  
    • flyingpeters
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:21am

      So lets get to the base of the matter! I wonder how Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva would feel about us aborting them right now? I mean, after all, they are after-birth are they not? So did they divulge to when or at what age it becomes murder when killing a baby? Did they say if the parents can abort the child at the age of 17? 12? 8? Do you see the evil of man operating outside the moral bounds of divine guidance….like animals eating there own young. Heathen savages and barbarians acting as if they were enlightened. There will be a day when the sleeping majority will no longer put up with this cancerous evil.

      Report Post » flyingpeters  
    • NC1
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:24am

      After birth abortions should be performed on idiots that believe this stuff is OK to do. After all, they‘re just going to be a burden on society when they get old and can’t take care of themselves and don’t have any kids around to help them out.

      Report Post » NC1  
    • oldguy49
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:20am

      under state control anything can be good for all………look at china…………….hey if their i.q isn’t up there should young children be killed to cull out the less intelligent

      Report Post »  
    • ginger3350
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:30am

      These people are absolutely disgusting. So can we go ahead and kill them? If it is somehow logical to murder a newborn since they “might” be a burden- can we murder anyone because they are somehow a burden? Or might become a burden? I remember a time when I used to think that the Holocaust was so unimaginable and could never possibly occur again. But lately, when these creeps come out and make their true thoughts known I can totally see the possibility that if the wrong government gets too much power, we will see events that took place in Nazi Germany happen all over again. Forced sterilization, killing those with mental defects, killing those who are deemed unworthy of life because they are a drain on society, genocide…. When does it end for these sick people? What is up with Australia anyway? Isn’t the lady who said “absolutely I would smother my child if I had to” from Australia? What a sick bunch.

      Report Post »  
    • ConservDadASD
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:39am

      “What morons they are, such hypocrites…go ahead and vote for the party of murder you pannets”

      Here’s a good idea… let’s start using the phrase “the party of murder” from now on. After all if the GOP is considered the party of greed… it’s time we returned the favor.

      Report Post »  
    • FreedomPurveyor
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:51am

      “I don’t think anybody here is saying that…. Is winning an argument to protect newborns too immoral for you? Beat your chest, then.”

      Consider the following comments:

      “I believe these two failed to become a person and aborting them is still an option.”
      “Methinks it’s ethicists that need retroactive abortion.”
      “…they will be in for a SEVERE case of lead poisoning if they come anywhere near my family.”
      “I have to say that I would personally kill anyone doing a after-birth abortion if I had the chance. Is that clear enough?”
      “…all of these people who are so in love with abortion should commit suicide”
      “Lets start with those who say after birth abortions are alright.”
      “Lets perform a ‘after-birth abortion’ on these 2 dummies!”
      “people who think like this should be aborted no matter how old they are.”
      “i really think it is time to cull the herd. if these people think it is ok to kill a newborn then i think it is ok to kill them…”
      “After birth abortions should be performed on idiots that believe this stuff is OK to do.”
      “I believe burning at the stake is most appropriate for demons like these.”
      “need to put these sick sobs out of their misery…”
      “I agree, those that subscribe to this mantra, need to be first in line for euthanasia..”

      I’m out of room. You can’t make a valid argument for the sanctity of human life and follow up with, “I think people that disagree should die.”

      Report Post » FreedomPurveyor  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 10:38am

      @JOANNE

      I obviously wasn’t saying that any person is claiming to be divine. I merely said that just because your claims have “divine” meaning behind them, doesn’t mean they are inherently good or true.

      Just because you say Jesus was divine, doesn’t mean all of his teachings were good and that he was inherently good.

      Report Post »  
    • Mr._Proud_Conservative
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:58am

      @ModerationIsBest:

      I’ve been looking over some of your comments and I was wondering if you could clarify a few things for me.

      First you make the argument that Jesus’ sacrifice was immoral, but I must ask you what scale you measure your morals on and, since you say you don’t think God exists, where they come from? I know this is over-used but, Hitler thought he was doing the world a great service. So what makes your view on morals any better than his?

      Report Post »  
    • teamarcheson
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:03pm

      Live Newborns Are Already Being Killed In American Hospitals

      The unwanted newborns are moved into sound proof rooms and ignored until they die. Most have severe birth defects, born to little girls, or just unwanted.

      Report Post »  
    • ACLUHater
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:17pm

      This is what happens when you give a liberal an inch. This is also why the “progressives” first task is to convince the lemmings that religion needs to be silenced in the USA.

      Report Post »  
    • NC1
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:05pm

      @Freedompurveyor: Is stopping people from killing an innocent life, a life that has not infringed upon a persons rights whatsoever, immoral? No. Is stopping a person from killing a person by killing them immoral? No. With these peoples thoughts will become a movement and with their movement will come legislation and with legislation will come legalization. It won’t happen tomorrow, but over time. Its pure evil to kill anything that is innocent, no matter if its crippled or mentally impaired. It has a right to life. Any person who kills and will kill again and condones the killing of innocent life violates the basic right to life endowed to us by our creator and should be stopped, even if it means killing them. Look at all the human potential that has been eradicated from us because its been OK to have a “choice”. Look at all the love that could have been given and received that is now lost because someone had a choice to dispose of “burden”. Choice is part of freewill, but not all choices are moral. Freewill requires responsibility and taking persons life because someone may feel its a burden is not responsible. Sanctity is holiness, there is nothing holy about taking innocent life.

      Report Post » NC1  
    • Kankokage
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:14pm

      Anonymouse, why are you trying to distract form this atrocity? Ethicists are making an argument for the legalized murder of babies, and you’re trying to switch to a poorly built argument against biblical literalists?

      Conclusion: Anonymouse likes the idea of killing newborn children.

      Report Post » Kankokage  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:37pm

      MOD, I don’t need to respond on your last post because many did after I logged off. But, I was wondering about your contradiction. You‘ve said before that you aren’t arrogant enough to say assuredly “there is no God” because you admit you could be wrong. I pointed out that seems more agnostic than atheistic. If you aren’t willing to say with 100% confidence that God does not exist, there is some acknowledgement from you that there is a possibility God DOES exist.

      Let’s say that you are 99.9% positive that God does not exist and 0.1% that He does. However, if even the tiniest factor that you will be wrong exists, why do you live your virtual life on The Blaze railing against the potential of God and those of us who belong to Him? Why do feel so compelled to come here daily when you disagree so vehemently with the core belief of 95%+ of Blaze posters who believe in a Higher Power? What are you trying to accomplish here? Are you trying to justify your belief or your non-belief? Do you find comfort among conservative Christians? Are we a better crowd to spend so much time with that atheists? Do you feel exceptional as a “conservative atheist”? It seems, as much as you disagree about our fundamental belief in God, you’d still rather spend time among Christians. You should ask yourself why.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:41pm

      @Proud

      Morals evolve as societies evolve. Hopefully there are enough people that can come together and agree and create a society that try and stop true human suffering.

      Look at our very own society. Our founders, who a majority on here and in our country claim were ALL Christians wrote about freedom, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those same guys, also owned slaves, and women weren’t treated as equal among men. Why would a nation that was supposedly founded on Christianity hold slaves? Why would over time those thoughts, ideas, and feelings change? Did our morality evolve?

      Hitler thought he was doing a great service, he also had a very strong religious foundation. He constantly mentioned a creator and said he was doing God’s work. His first treaty was the Catholic church. The belt buckles of Nazi’s said, “Got Mitt Uns” or “God with us”. The Catholic church helped some nazi’s escape south after the war. Whether or not Hitler truly believed in a God is up for debate, but there is no debate that he used religion to justify his mission.

      Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Kim Jong Il all held themselves up as some type of God. They weren’t sane.

      There are Atheists who have done some evil things, horribly evil things. There are religious believers who have done horribly evil things.

      If you believe in a God and get your morals from God, you aren’t being moral. You are being obedient, and there’s a difference.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:49pm

      @COPATRIOTS

      Agnostic is more along the lines of, “I‘m not sure if a God does or doesn’t exist.” Agnostics are more unwilling to take a side.

      I simply say that while I haven’t seen sufficient evidence for a God, that doesn’t completely exclude the possibility that there is one. While I don’t think there is a God, I could be wrong.

      I spend time with all groups of people. I came on here because I liked Glenn Beck. I saw how this place was and felt that Beck would be saddened to see how much hatred, and bigotry comes from his fans and supporters.

      I am able to spend my time with all sorts of people. Unlike you apparently(who called me a hypocrite for spending Christmas with Christians), I seem to be able to put this silly mumbo jumbo aside and spend time with people that I like. If a Muslim I like wants to invite me to something, I may or may not go, same with Jew, Mormon etc. I am constantly getting asked to do stuff with my friends at their church, sometimes I go, sometimes I don’t.

      My atheism doesn’t dictate my life and who I associate it.

      Report Post »  
    • MammalOne
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:02pm

      Ironically, we’ve ONLY had the words of man to guide our morality since the dawn of man. Gods are characters in fairy tales. The bible is the great Oz, it’s all smoke and mirrors – behind it: the words of man.

      Report Post » MammalOne  
    • Joshua7
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 3:13pm

      George Bernard Shaw Defends Hitler, Mass Murder:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvsf2MUKRQ

      Anyone else thinks this sounds familiar?

      Report Post » Joshua7  
    • Doris
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 3:15pm

      I wonder what age they become people.If caring for themselves is the criteria, then anyone up to maybe eight years is not a viable human being yet. What drivel.I hope Palin and Travoltas and anyone else with pull and has had the treasure of a challenged child in their lives gets on this stuff and these idiots.I would imagine obama agrees.His admin already wants to kill off oldsters now probably children as well.

      Report Post »  
    • wolfinshdo
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 3:22pm

      Carry this thinking out to its logical conclusion and about half of the Democrat party would have to be immediately aborted regardless of age.

      Report Post » wolfinshdo  
    • James
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 3:55pm

      Hmmmm,
      not a bad idea! Lets say when the unit reaches a certain age maybe 15 years or so an Existence and Terminating panel of a set amount of persons evaluate the unit and then determine if it should then be terminated or be allowed to continue. This process would greatly clean my Neighbor hood.

      ESQ
      Odessa Fla

      Report Post »  
    • ALPHAMEL
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 3:56pm

      I agree with the concept of post-birth abortions so long as there’s no age limit on the growing- outside the- womb- fetus. As long as the umbilical chord has been cut. Starting with Obama and on to all left wingnuts in the Administration and Muslims.

      Report Post »  
    • inblack
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 3:59pm

      Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics are not human.

      It is time to make it clear to these people that we are very close to determining that THEY are morally flawed and not human and for they own good we should abort them at whatever age they are.

      Sorry – but these animals make my blood boil.

      Report Post »  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 4:50pm

      Yo MOD:
      Is God evil because he will/does not put up with evil? Because he hates evil? Because you can not be His God and tell Him how it will be ?…………

      Report Post »  
    • FreedomPurveyor
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:01pm

      “Is stopping a person from killing a person by killing them immoral? No.”

      Neither of these two have killed or are about to kill anyone. They wrote an article.

      “With these peoples thoughts will become a movement and with their movement will come legislation and with legislation will come legalization.”

      That is a slippery slope fallacy. Killing someone does not become moral because their ideas may, eventually, lead to the legalization of something you disagree with – in this case, infanticide.

      “Choice is part of freewill, but not all choices are moral. Freewill requires responsibility and taking persons life because someone may feel its a burden is not responsible.”

      Taking someone’s life because you disagree with their world view is not responsible, either.

      “Sanctity is holiness, there is nothing holy about taking innocent life.”

      None of us gets to be the arbiter of holiness. If someone thinks that abortion and infanticide are okay, then that is between them and God. It is not up to anyone else to kill them in order to stop them from spreading their own beliefs or rationalizations.

      Report Post » FreedomPurveyor  
    • Mr._Proud_Conservative
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:19pm

      @ModerationIsBest:

      Wonderful response, and if I was to try to argue morality evolving I would be hard pressed to find evidence to the contrary, though I would question whether it was evolving towards more good or evil morals.

      The point I was trying to make though is who is to say what is moral and on what basis? You say it is evolving, but is it getting closer to good morals or bad? Who is to say making women equal is moral, that not killing someone who looks at you funny isn’t justified?

      My main question is who decides what is morally good or bad, you can say what you or society thinks of as moral, but your own arguments show how often and easily society gets it wrong. So when looking for what is moral, shouldn’t we look to something bigger than us, since we always get it wrong. Really, the very fact that there are morals in the first place show that there is someone above us who has determined them.

      If God sets what is moral and I follow it, then one must assume I’m being moral. The fact that while doing so I’m also obeying Him is irrelevant.

      Report Post »  
    • oldoldtimer
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:38pm

      The Romans morals and ethics sank to the same level as our right before the collapse. The Romans had disposal pits for unwanted children. You simply threw them away. Anyone that wanted them could go to the pits and take their pick. The babies would cry and scream for 2 or 3 days before they died.

      Report Post »  
    • FreedomPurveyor
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:22pm

      “So when looking for what is moral, shouldn’t we look to something bigger than us, since we always get it wrong.”

      This is exactly why the war on religion is necessary. Once they have scrubbed even the very mention of God from the public sphere, it will be far easier to make themselves the adjudicators of all matters moral. The logic of these two ethicists will prevail.

      Report Post » FreedomPurveyor  
    • katamb55
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:32pm

      I cried when I read this. As a 50-something who has never had children, I say send them over to me and I’ll take care of them. What an evil thing to even contemplate. Lord save us all!

      Report Post » katamb55  
    • Papadoc
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:48pm

      I think these guys make the conservative case quite well. When we let self-titled “ethicists” decide who should live and who should die and that being a person by their definition (instead of “human”) entitles you to live, don’t be surprised when the ethicists someday decide you and yours falls on the outside of their definition. Mein Kampf was written by such a self-titled ethicist who redefined who was human and who wasn’t, and who therefore had a right to live or not.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:59pm

      @Proud

      As I said, the best hope is that there is a larger number of people who are more interested in minimizing human suffering then maximizing it.

      Society gets it wrong, as you said, but our best hope is that over time they will start to get it right. As I said. We as a “Christian nation” as people like to say now view slavery as “wrong.” There was a time when Christians thought it wasn’t wrong, and they had what they thought was biblical evidence to support their claims. What changed? Surely not the Bible.

      The problem with your last example is that the Bible is read in many different ways. Who is to say what is and what isn’t moral in the Bible?

      Let’s look at a few things in the Bible.

      Do you think it was moral of Abraham to be willing to sacrifice his son because he thought God told him to? Whether or not God stopped him is irrelevant, fact is, he was willing and thought it was in God’s nature to want a sacrifice of a son(which is ironically since God sent Jesus.)

      Let’s look at when Moses told the soldiers to go in and kill all the men and women and boys, but to save the young virgins for themselves. Is that moral? Was it moral because he was following God’s orders?

      The problem I have a lot of religious people is they talk about morality in terms of human standards, and how we get our morals from God. I then show instances of how God ISN’T moral, and I get, “oh well that’s God. Who are we to question or understand his will?

      Report Post »  
    • candcantiques
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:18pm

      Well if we are going to go so far as to say newborns have no right to life then I would have to say that those who have written this opinion, who have less intelligence and empathy than a newborn, have less of a right to life and we shouls smite them immediately.

      Report Post »  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:43pm

      @FREEDOMPURVEYOR
      You have trouble understanding the difference between “a death wish” and turning these deathicists’ argument back on them.

      There are two comments that talk about actual killing. One states that if they saw anybody in the act of committing infanticide they would kill the perp. Sounds fair to me. An innocent human being who is incapable of defending itself would be protected. The other person was talking about protecting his children. I would too. How about you? Another commenter who posted after our discussion started said that IF they want to kill babies it is appropriate to kill them. That statement is ambiguous, but again, people have a moral right to say they will not put up with lawful infanticide — at least not in this country.

      I believe Blaze commenters would not go out and do something stupid. They would go through the court system, unless they caught someone in the act of murdering a baby — theirs or someone else’s. We conservatives allowed abortion to be legalized, but we can’t let liberals take it to the next level. Better to fight and die, than to allow more murders. We’ll probably have to fight anyway to stop the party of murder from killing whomever they wish.

      @CONSERVDADASD
      Kudos to you for that excellent suggestion. Will do!

      Report Post »  
    • liberty49
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:55pm

      How can so-called educated people be so blind? This is just murder plain and simple!

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:15pm

      MOD, I’ve had a busy day and have yet to get current reading the above posts. But I thought of our atheism/morality discussion as I came across this link on Drudge. Normally, I would have ignored it completely but I couldn’t help wonder yet again whose morality would rule in an atheist society.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106025/Stephen-Hawking-visits-California-swingers-sex-club.html?ITO=1490

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:26pm

      MOD, your hypocrisy is that you spend time in real with people you say are Christians while bashing their very beliefs in anonymity on a daily basis. I am quite sure you don‘t tell your friends daily that their God doesn’t exist and equate Him to zeus on a daily basis. And yet you would spend Christmas with the very people genuinely celebrating their Savior while having such animosity toward their brothers and sisters here. I assure you that you would not have Christian friends if they read the words you write here daily.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:35pm

      MOD, as to people getting more moral……that is probably among the most ridiculous things I’ve seen you utter yet. If anything, society goes in morality cycles. How many abortions have occurred just in this country alone (I can’t even conceive the number in China!) in the last 40 years? This very article speaks to depravity worsening, not improving. Narcissism is rampant. Sexual depravity is disgusting and gets worse every day. School shootings are becoming more common. You get my point.

      Society continues to worsen as it becomes more atheistic in nature.

      Report Post »  
    • WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges12
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:37pm

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

      Excellent point!

      Ripley agrees and suggests to abort the communist infestation in Washington DC:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q

      Master Chief agrees and “delivers liberty” to abort the communist infestation in Washington DC:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLrSinimV5o

      Report Post » WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges12  
    • FreedomPurveyor
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:33pm

      “You have trouble understanding the difference between “a death wish” and turning these deathicists’ argument back on them.”

      Using the word “abortion” in the death wish doesn’t make it “turning the argument back on them.” The argument is that the lives of infants must be protected because all human life is sacred. From a logical standpoint, saying that these people should die, regardless of the way it is phrased, invalidates that very point. This is NOT the same as comparing abortion to capital punishment. Writing an article is certainly not a capital offense.

      The reason I make this point is that if progress is ever to be made on this issue, the minds of people who currently think abortion is okay must be changed. You aren’t going to do that by saying you think that their lives should be forfeit because of their views.

      Report Post » FreedomPurveyor  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:45pm

      @COPATRIOTS

      I’m sorry you view not owning slaves and treating woman equally is becoming less moral.

      Report Post »  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:47pm

      Yo Mod:

      You are not speaking to me in you’re replys and did not answer my questions above, but I would like to respond to Abraham. First, Abraham as written did not think he heard God .. he did. If the bible is true, then so is that statement. Abraham was being obedient … it is as simple as that. Do you not think that Abraham had questions, that this was an easy thing for him to do. That he was jumping with joy at this opportunity. That he did not wonder at what God was asking him to do.

      Job says to God that even if God kills him, he (Job) will trust in him.

      Bottom line is God can do whatever he wants to do, it has nothing to do with morality. It is His RIGHT.
      The bible says that God is a God of justice … that God is just …some ,like Job trust this to be true. However, this is a stumbling block for many, many, people; one of which seems to be you.

      Hitler was a possesed man, like many others you mentioned.

      The bible also says that in the final days people will kill christians thinking they are doing the will of God … Did you know this? One can see this happening now. A TRUE christian does not kill Jews as he understands their place in God’s heart.

      You are correct concerning the hatred of many on this site, but I would also say to you that many of those many are not christians

      Report Post »  
    • Mr._Proud_Conservative
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 10:24pm

      @ModertionIsBest:

      I think we are arguing slightly different things. See, you seem to think I’m asking you “How can society be moral?”. My real point though is how do we know that society right now isn’t at the pinnacle of morality, that we weren’t there a hundred years ago when women had no rights? What makes your opinion that women having rights is more moral than my thought that it is more moral for them to have none(which I don’t actually believe).

      The difference is, your arguing on how close we’re coming to what is morally good, and I’m arguing how can we define what is morally good? You say that you hope society will start to get it right, but how will we know if we as a society are getting closer?

      As for the Bible verses supposedly showing that God is not moral, lets first keep in mind that God‘s definition of what is moral doesn’t have to be happiness or lack of suffering on humanity’s side. It may be that His morality is based on getting as many people to come to Him willingly as he can. I mean, what is 20-120 years of torture to an eternity of pure joy/bliss?

      As for your arguments of God being immoral on humanity’s view of morality, your going to need to be more specific on what you find immoral, so I can address it properly. Also, it would be helpful if you added the verses you are referring to so I can better respond.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 10:28pm

      @ MOD,

      That is your only two ways you think society is more moral that you use repeatedly. You do know the history of slaves, right? Once again, you aren’t viewing societies in their historical contexts and the societal norms of that time. Further, do you really think slavery is abolished around the world? By the way, it was many Christians advancing the abolishment of slavery in this country.

      As to womens rights, yes, some good came from that but men abandoning families, single parent families, unprecedented divorce rates, the subsequent sickening result of the numerous abortions from casual sex……did women’s rights really make society more moral?

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:23pm

      @4TRUTH2ALL

      Sorry, being one of the few non Christians on this site, I am usually having to deal with all sorts of comments and questions directed at me and sometimes I can‘t get to them all or just don’t see them.

      Ironically you proved the point I was making in that you aren’t exhibiting moral behavior, you are just being obedient. God could be for something completely immoral, yet because he’s God, it’s okay.

      @Proud
      No, we are arguing the same thing and I have said a couple of times in this thread that one could view morality by trying to have as minimal suffering of human life as possible. That is one way outside of a God dictating it, that you could describe morality. Read through Numbers 31 and ponder lines like, ““Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. “But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.”

      @Patriots
      Wait what, societies in context? Societal norms? You sound like you are on my side on this issue and not on the side of absolute morality. When it comes to absolute morality, if something is wrong, shouldn’t it be wrong no matter what context or what norms are in place? Are you saying that slavery was okay, because it was a societal norm at the time? Again, you sound like you’re arguing for my side, that while it may have been the norm at the time, it was still wrong and I’m glad we as a society evolved past that thinking.

      Report Post »  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:54pm

      Yo Mod:

      No need for apologies … but I did not prove you’re point. I am to be obedient to God … yes, this is true. Why do I chose to do so … many reasons … the point I was trying to make was the goodness, love, patience, forgivness, grace and the justice and the many more attributes of God that make God who He is. Is it possible that I serve an evil God …NO … a God of justice …YES ! I am exempt from this justice because of my faith/trust in Christ. How can you find a God that gives His life for you’re life evil or even consider it ???

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:05am

      @4TRUTH2ALL

      No, you did prove my point, you even said it.

      I said above your post that if you’re being obedient, you aren’t being moral.

      You then said the same thing almost word for word.

      Your all knowing, all loving, all powerful God created the system for the “fall of man.”

      Either he knew Adam and Eve would eat the fruit and introduce sin into the world(which wouldn’t be Good) OR
      He isn’t an all knowing God

      Logically those are your only two options and either answer is fine by me. Both prove my point.

      Just because you were taught to think of your God in those flattering terms doesn’t mean he actually exhibits those terms.

      Like with abortion.

      Either your God knowingly gives babies to women he knows will get an abortion, or he isn’t all knowing/all powerful by choosing to stop giving babies to women he knows will get an abortion.

      You will argue free will, and I will argue back when God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Not to mention there are some denominations who don’t believe in free will.

      Report Post »  
    • AussieJohn
      Posted on February 29, 2012 at 2:33am

      I’m Australian. This crap makes me crazy! These people don’t speak for us. Heck, they don’t even speak TO us. The only ones that listen are the left wing media stenographers. They don’t report- they repeat. They are the product of 2 generations of athiest university administration and pernicious progressive propaganda.
      WILL THESE MONSTERS BE THE ONES TO KILL THEM? ARE THEY VOLUNTEERING? They wanted publicity for their paper- they got it. God save us from the thoughts and conceptions of hearts and minds like theirs.
      Save the whales…? Yeah, they’re up for that. Save the Baby Fur Seal…? Absolutely! Save the Children…? Well they’re not actually viable yet- so they have no value, you know, like handicapped people and Conservatives. They’re not viable are they? Are they…..?
      IDIOTS!!!

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 29, 2012 at 8:36am

      Nice try, MOD. Civilization advanced economically, morality certainly didn’t. FWIW it was Christian northerners in America who abolished slavery in this country. Where did that morality derive?

      Similarly to women’s right examples above demonstrate, morality didn’t improve. Slavery certainly reflected men showing their basest form of evil…which speaks to my point. What morality improved from the time of Egyptians horrific treatment of slaves to American horrific treatment of slaves to modern China’s mandating murder of unborn babies (is that not also a form of slavery?) or the sex slave industry of teenage girls in Thailand (just two modern examples among many)? Or right here in America, how are entitlements to masses not a form of slavery?

      As an aside, consider the term “bond-slave” (or in Greek “doulos” for context). Given the socio-economic times, oftentimes “slaves” committed themselves to their owner out of provision, good treatment and, in some cases, love. If slavery were always inherently bad, why would anyone willingly chose to become one? And, before you intentionally misinterpret my words, I am not, by any means, advocating slavery!……only that you seem to have a difficult time understanding cultures beyond the immediate world you see.

      Moving on from this thread. I‘m sure we’ll connect on another one. Be well.

      Report Post »  
    • Mr._Proud_Conservative
      Posted on February 29, 2012 at 8:39am

      @ModerationIsBest:

      Before I get to any of the points addressed to me, I would like to point out that just because one is obedient doesn‘t mean he isn’t moral. If God says it is morally good to help the poor and I do it, then aren’t I being obedient and moral, why is it a this or that proposition? Well that’s my two cents worth, onto the other issues.

      If morality is based on the least amount of human suffering, then would I be right in saying that judges, prosecutors, and juries are the least moral people in the world? What with their constant sentencing of people to fines, life in prison, death, ect. Were should we draw the line between morality and justice?

      When talking about the Bible and the God of it we need to try to look at why he does things from His perspective. God is perfect, so the fact that he doesn’t strike us down for simply telling a lie or committing any sin just once shows his mercy. Let’s just think about other times God has decreed for a city/nation to be destroyed. Sodom/Gomorrah(S/G) and Nineveh for instance, He had decreed both to be destroyed due to their wickedness. He gave a chance to both though, Abraham to one and to the other Jonah, there were none righteous in S/G except Lot and his family(to a degree) so God spared them and poured His judgment on the rest. As for Nineveh they repented and were spared, for awhile.

      So when looking at those two examples we know God only calls for the destruction of nations that deserve it.

      Conti

      Report Post »  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on February 29, 2012 at 8:50am

      Yo Mod:
      You DID NOT answer ANY of my questions …. you, as others always bring more into the equation/conversation.

      NO, I DID NOT MAKE YOU”RE POINT… again, we are to be obedient..yes … NO, God is not IMMORAL … that is YOU”RE point.

      I gave you examples of who he is … you ignore them.

      IS THE SUFFERING AND DEATH OF JESUS ON YOU“RE BEHALF AN ACT OF AN EVIL OR ”IMMORAL” GOD ???

      You tell me that I am deceived into thinking that God is good … I believe that you are deceived into thinking God is evil … you may say that you do not believe in God or god’s …sure doesn’t sound that way to me.

      Report Post »  
    • The Jewish Avenger
      Posted on February 29, 2012 at 9:55am

      I wonder if anyone will ever read this….

      KISS A BABY!!! DO IT!!! DO IT NOW!!!

      And 3MM… did you really just say that? *GASP!!!* LOL

      Report Post » The Jewish Avenger  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 29, 2012 at 4:24pm

      @4TRUTH2ALL

      Yes, your God created a system that would eventually lead to the necessity of a human sacrifice to save humanity.

      That IS evil.

      Your God is either evil, or horribly inept at creation.

      Once again as I said, you gave me descriptions of God. I say those descriptions of God don’t make sense based on his actions.

      Just because you say something, doesn’t make it true.

      No matter what happens, you will likely always view your God as good, righteous, just, holy, loving, merciful, honest, and any other flattering term you want to use.

      If you get a promotion at work, you will likely thank God, say he is great, rewards his followers and any other justification you want to use.

      If the very next day a family member of yours die, you will then revert to, “well it‘s God’s will, who are we to understand God’s will?” once again trying to find a justification for something.

      If you want that fine, but it doesn‘t mean it’s true.

      Report Post »  
    • Menucha77
      Posted on February 29, 2012 at 4:56pm

      This is sick and WRONG – no other way to say it! Before too long they will justify killing toddlers, children, adolescents, teens and then adults. In many societies they kill the elderly for this very reason: “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.” HOGWASH!!! It’s nothing less than murder!! This is Islamic thinking: death is more valuable than life – even your own child’s life! This is also evolutionary thinking: survival of the fittest! Everything is replaceable; nothing is sacred! So, according to their way of thinking – I am a person or human if I can prove it by my contribution to society??? How about we all agree to abort all the pro-abortionists (I mean, if the show fits….); then we might actually get some quality human beings (who started off as HUMAN babies un-aborted!) to make healthy policies that support of LIFE!

      Report Post »  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on February 29, 2012 at 6:00pm

      Yo Mod;

      Agreed, truth is not dependent on me … but I would send that right back at you.

      Let me get this correct … you believe that Jesus death on the cross is evil?

      If so, then should God have made us a bunch of robuts with no free will? With no choice to obey.

      What I want … is truth!

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 29, 2012 at 7:03pm

      @4TRUTH2ALL

      Did Pharaoh have free will when God hardened his heart?

      This is essentially what your beliefs boil down to.

      Your God created man for his(God’s) own greed, his own pride and his own desire to be loved(Your God sure does exhibit human traits). For instance, I could not be upset or hurt, for not being born. Thus, God created us because he wanted the worship, praise, adoration, etc

      Your God is the beginning and end, all powerful, all knowing etc. Therefore he created the rules for this universe and knows everything that will happen. Therefore he created man KNOWING they would introduce sin into his world, and that he would have to send himself/son to be sacrificed to save the souls of mankind. He does all this KNOWING that many humans won’t accept and follow Jesus, thus getting sent to hell to get tortured for an eternity.

      That IS evil. That isn’t just, that isn’t righteous, that isn’t holy, that isn’t merciful. It‘s pure evil and even if your God existed he wouldn’t be worthy of praise and worship.

      Report Post »  
    • dawngaye
      Posted on February 29, 2012 at 7:26pm

      My daughter in a public service announcement – it’s about ABORTION. And it coordinates with this post.
      http://www.popmodal.com/video/3100/Shocking-unforgettable-Pro-Life-film-Its-The-Same-Thing

      Report Post »  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on February 29, 2012 at 10:10pm

      Yo Mod:

      You seem to have some understanding of scripture, so I will assume you know the story of the pot and the potter and that the pot does not tell the potter what to do. That the potter has the right to do as he pleases with the pot he created. Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be the issue you have a problem with.
      We are as far from God as the pot is from the potter.

      God did not create us because there was something lacking in Him.
      Have you ever appreciated a sunset, and enjoyed the beauty of it. That is why God created us .. so we could enjoy His beauty. God has not harden you’re heart, you have .. you have decided that you do not want his goodness. You are like Pharoah who was against God from the start. The bible is clear that God does not cause a man to sin. Man choses to turn from God.

      As far as an eternal hell … I agree that it does seem to be “excessive”. I trust that when all things are revealed it will be just and I will then understand. But again, those that are in hell are there by their own choosing , they did not want God and/or the salvation offered.

      I have spoken the truth to you according to scripture and at no time have said anything in condemnation. You’re current state of not wanting God does not have to remain, it is you’re choice. I truly hope that one day you will call apon His name and that the wall that prevents you from seeing Him as a God of love will be torn down.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 29, 2012 at 11:03pm

      @4TRUTH2ALL

      You make false assumptions about me that knock down your argument.

      I went to an Evangelical church for 6 years. I believed all the same stuff you did. I then decided to take an objective look at everything in the Bible. I learned how it was actually created and saw how fallible it was. I wasn’t against God then, and can‘t be against a God now because I don’t think one exists.

      I am not telling the potter what to do, I am simply taking your description of the potter and showing you why what you‘re saying isn’t logical.

      And your argument about the sunset doesn’t make sense. I can’t be upset about not being created.

      Exodus 20:5 “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.”

      Your God IS jealous, and is desperate for adoration and love, or else the 1st commandment wouldn’t be necessary. If he’s loving, merciful, just, righteous, why would he sentence humans to hell for the simple act of not believing in him . Especially the millions of people who will never hear of his “goodness” before they die.

      Let’s say this. I’m alive at the end times, and am an Atheist. Jesus comes down from the clouds and starts doing miracles. I then say “Oh wow, Jesus is real, I believe in him and that he is our savior and died on the cross for our sins.” Do you think it’s too late for me t

      Report Post »  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 11:58am

      Yo Mod:
      Not sure you will read this as the story is off the main page … 1.) my assumptions were you had knowledge of the bible … you do, even stating you attended church for six years
      2.) you have a problem with God … you do, you have turned away and have chosen not to believe because you do/did not like what you learned

      QUESTION: What in the “creating” of the bible do you find “ fallible”?
      Pot and potter: You are the pot, you indeed are telling the potter that he does not exist, and that you exist without him and that you will decide you’re own fate , and this is after you have learned about him and have decided, in part, that you don’t like him cause you are better then him.( these are not assumptions,it is based on you’re own words.)

      Sunset: my SIMPLE anology of the sunset has nothing to do with you’re being created (might want to read again).

      Exodus 20:5 – You read this and you don’t like it, you think it is unkind, unloving, and unfair. In doing so you then say to yourself that you do not want to believe in this God, thus becomming a non-believer, (an atheist). This is exactly my example of the pot and the potter. You also conviently leave out verse 6 which speaks of his great love.

      Report Post »  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 12:34pm

      Mod: cont …
      Jealousy of God: yep… He is, clearly says so. You think in terms of corrupted human jealousy. God is jealous for the truth …He is the truth … in people comming to the truth, they find Him …thus they find His salvation, in turn finding eternity in paradise excaping from His wrath and hell. Is this truth not worth protecting. His jealousy is ALL about His LOVE … but you have believed a lie from hell that satan still to this day uses to decieve people (see Genesis 3:1-4) where he calls God’s word into question.

      Hell: already explained this to you but you refuse to hear … one more time. A judge sentences someone based on what they did. They did it, they decided to do it, they knew the law. The judge makes a JUSTIFIED decision based on WHAT THEY DID. That is not the judges fault, is the one being sentenced fault. In the courtroom of God you will have no defence. You are guilty of sin. Believers have a defence … that being Jesus who has already done their time. So again .. how can Jesus defending you be evil … he is trying to save you ?!!!!

      Concerning others … Peter asked Jesus what was to become of John … Peter was kind of John’s big brother (John was younger) so Peter has a concern for him. Jesus responce was …what concern is that of you’res? ….my responce to you’re comment about “the millions” of which you have no real concern is the same. It is not you’re business, it‘s God’s! ,,, again the pot says to the potter…yo

      Report Post »  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 1:15pm

      Mod:
      “Oh, Wow, Jesus is real”: First off, you could die of a heart attack tomorrow, get killed in a car accident a week from now, or maybe you never even read this cause someone came in the store you were at and stated shooting and one of the ones murdered was you. “Today is the day of salvation” – says the bible. Another, if you live you’re entire life againt Christ; to change at this point is most unlikly, not only that, you obvoiusly have no idea as to what is going to happen prior to His return. So, this would be foolish to attempt.
      However, my answer to you would be yes, and that based on what the bible says, not my thinking. (I could be giving you scripture for most everything I have said and say, this would take lots of time and space). The examples of this would be Thomas, who as you are probably aware of did not believe till he actually touched Jesus. Another would be the parable of the workers in the field.( do you know it?). Those whom have trusted in Jesus prior and are called to him at His return will “in the twinkling of an eye” be given their heavenly, eternal bodies. Someone that does as you ask will not. That reward is not given to those that might do as you suggest. Jesus will rule for a thousand years through this. So, those that wait may live longer but will still die and miss other blessings in this time.

      Report Post »  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 2:07pm

      Yo Mod:

      If I have made incorrect assumptions concerning you … my apologies, but my positions are not based on you, therefore my incorrect assumptions (if indeed exist) do not change the truth of scripture from which I speak.

      You say that you went to a church for 6 years and then took an “objective look” and are now where you are in you’re beliefs. I grew up in the church, walked away from it pretty seriously, and God in His goodness got my attention again, thought it hurt. I have been a believer for 4 x you’re 6 (not an old man yet). during which time I have done my homework on history, archeology and science. I have yet to find ONE TRUTH that disproves scripture, and I hate with a passion being lied to because lies are deceptions and I do not like being deceived. I noticed in the bible one time that many places where it has a list of things that prevent a person from entering the kingdom of heaven; lying was on them, many Proverbs are about lying. Was wondering about it and God showed me why. God in His JEALOUSLY for TRUTH concerning HIMSELF and ALL things let me see how much destruction comes out of lies. From the everyday to the eternal, of which I can personally speak to quite well. In fact it is one such occasion that God used to bring me back. All my studies lead me to more faith/trust in God. Read a newsletter, in it, it said; that a christian should be BRUTALLY honest with himself. I apply this good advice to my life across the board.

      Report Post »  
    • Sad4theUS
      Posted on March 4, 2012 at 4:30pm

      “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.” So… according to this ill-informed idioit… since they can’t contribute to society, they aren’t viable humans?? Gosh, if we killed off all babies because they weren’t viable, useful, productive, or able to make money right away, we wouldn’t have anybody on this planet! Oooohhhh, just listening to the logic (And I’m being very facetious when I say logic!) of the Liberals is exhausting, not to mention down right frightening!

      Report Post » Sad4theUS  
    • MSrebel
      Posted on August 8, 2012 at 11:58am

      Only God can and will crush liberalism.

      Report Post »  
  • christos
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:58pm

    .These Folks are buying a one way ticket to HELL for ETERNITY,,,Leave Babies alone you cold blooded Murderers.

    Report Post » christos  
    • cloudsofwar
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:04pm

      Nazi’s.

      Report Post »  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:04pm

      the slippery slope that started when we don’t acknowledge that human life begins at conception and the that the right to ones human existence is the paramount value for when they deprive you of your existence they deprive you of your life which is the paramount value without which all others are moot..rights apply to individuals -each individial human being-and the value of an individuals life is the paramount ethical value from which all others are measured. .Religion cannot be used to refute this horrific evil.They don’t buy it.it has to be refuted first with the biological fact that life starts at conception and then with the ethical basis of human cooperation and civilization-do unto others [or human rights].if you take away someones existence you’ve taken from them everything.Where is their due process?

      Report Post »  
    • UseReasonNotMagic
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:24pm

      I am not religious, I believe abortion up to a certain amount of time is a choice that should be left up to the woman.

      With that said,
      I think this is abhorrent and would never support this idea.
      You don’t need religion to know this is wrong. So all you can stop making the simple minded assumption that all people without religion are evil and have no morals. That’s just ignorant

      Report Post »  
    • Unix
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 8:11pm

      Ya, who died and made women God to decide who lives and dies? morons who believe a woman has a choice to murder a baby, are just as guilty as the murderer, go ahead and vote the party of genocide into power, you will rot in hell with them.

      Report Post » Unix  
    • Puddle Duck
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:53am

      And yet Rose Ellen you are fully backing the political forces that believe whole heartedly in this “eugenics” claptrap. Making you are finally waking up to the nightmare coming our way if your political pals remain in power…..At some point most liberals find out that they really do not support what they thought was the right thing to do…by then however the realization that you’ve been backing the wrong team all along leaves one somehwat bitter. I’ve seen many a youthful liberal in my day a died in the wool social democrat run smack dap into a wall or turth and reality once they have gotten married and started a family, own a house, cars etc…they relaize that the youthful political fancy that sounded good was killing thier chance at raising a family, keeping food on the table and roof over thier heads, clothes on thier backs…funny how some responsibility snaps most youthful idiots out a dumb fantasy world.

      Report Post » Puddle Duck  
    • Anonymouse.
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:24am

      That’s it Glenn. Keep ‘em angry! March out the “baby killer” story. lol You people realize that beck and his staff sit around a big expensive conference table and discuss how to keep you suckers riled up with inflammatory stories, no matter how obscure, don’t you?

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/55751455@N02/6910751527/in/photostream/

      Report Post » Anonymouse.  
    • goahead.makemyday
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:47pm

      anymouse
      Do us all a favor. Before you attack ANYONE have credible proof that you can show us. Until then all your comments do is cause inflammatory arguments. Or maybe that is the whole point, remember when you point a finger you have three pointing back at you.

      Report Post » goahead.makemyday  
    • goahead.makemyday
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:48pm

      Rose
      I am glad that I have at least one thing that we can both agree on. I may disagree on everything else with you, but on this we do agree.

      Report Post » goahead.makemyday  
  • Frodo RinosBane
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:56pm

    Hey, it worked for the Nazis, so I guess it will work for these “ethicists.”

    Report Post » Frodo RinosBane  
    • Atilla
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:10pm

      Only the name of the infanticide changes. Give it the “ethical” label and let the ugenics rule. History is repeating itself in the inhumanity of man. The paradox is that the secular humanist lack the instinctual preservation of the new born animal. Legal rights of piping plover eggs are more stringent than of the unborn fetus. Vengance will be mine sayeth the Lord. Soon.

      Report Post »  
    • Chuck Stein
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:20pm

      Exactly. The “Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics” — what a title. If someone is a “minister” or a “rabbi” or a “pastor” or a “priest” — THEN they have an agenda. They are suspect. But if someone is a “medical ethicist” then they have the certification of the intellgensia. The unwashed masses are simply ignorant — if not flat-out dim-witted — if they dare to challenge the wise pronouncements of academia.

      Report Post »  
    • M 4 Colt
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:42pm

      You can bet that once they get the public to accept this the next step for them will be the homeless, the old the mentally ill. Hitler did the same thing in Germany starting in 1933 first it was the Jews next the gypsy’s, next it was the mentally ill, and lets also not forget that he went after the homosexuals that the left wing elites seems to love so much.

      Hitler said the same thing that if you were of no value to the state then you life held no worth. NO WORTH, say’s who, a bunch of left wing elites, well i have got news for them, in order for this scheme to work they will first need to disarm the American public and i see a BIG FIGHT coming anytime they try to implement that idea.

      Report Post »  
    • Jase
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 8:22pm

      Yep, they pushing the envelope:

      “Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn”

      …so with that reasoning you can argue that if termination of a newborn is allowable, then termination of a toddler should also be, and so on. This is the danger of an atheistic, science-trumps-all belief system

      Report Post » Jase  
  • Steven63
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:56pm

    One of the things that seperates us from the animal world is our compassion. Apparently, these folks are much closer to animals than the majority of our species.

    Report Post »  
    • treas54
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:04pm

      Even in the animal kingdom a mother will protect it’s young to the death. These people are godless monsters.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:26pm

      Some non-Thai tribes in Thailand don’t name a babies for few days. They don’t want to get too attached in case it dies. But the upshot is that the baby is not fully human until it is named.

      Also the Greeks among other practiced exposure of babies deemed weak.

      So the ethicist will claim that they are continuing what has happened since antiquity.

      My view is that the richer & more technically advanced a society is, the more we should do to help babies with birth defects. We shouldn‘t spend so such that people can’t afford to go to college or have recreations, but we should do better than the generation preceding. Caring for the weak makes us strive morally & scientifically.

      Post term abortion of a Down’s syndrome baby? Really? I have seen Down’s syndrome kids with IQs of 70. We keep murderers alive with supposed IQ of 70 (& the left agitates to do so).

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:39pm

      Walkabout…the Spartans also encouraged killing a slave as part of military training and pederasty in their military schools. Finally, they joined with the Persians after the Peleponesian War to overthrow Athens. The Greeks have always been their own worst enemy, we see that even today. Let’s not invoke the ancient Greeks on this one. Killing babies is immoral, inhuman and beastly. Reducing life to what we believe a child may be worth or what inconveniences it will place on someone is beyond the pale. But this is the kind of stuff the academic left plays with all the time. Read my posts on Obama‘s John Holdren if you don’t believe me. The loss of conscience is something the left is striving for. This is why they assault religion because religion is a cornerstone of conscience. We have history as a teacher, not ancient history but twentieth century history as to what the abandonment of conscience and religion will do to a society.

      Report Post »  
    • Puddle Duck
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:05am

      Part of the Fabian/Progressive doctrine is population control through any means necessary (or at the very least what they think they can get away with).

      The psuedosciences of climate change and eugenics have a pop[ulation control component as an integral part of thier solution for world problems, something which you’ll never get a progressive to admit publically. Privately however they are more than happy to talk about culling a billion or two from the planet in order to save it from ourselves…sort of like a self fulfilling prophecy that a surprising number of enviro whackos endorse along with the progressives and fabian socialists.

      Report Post » Puddle Duck  
    • Mil Mom
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 3:45am

      @Steven63
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:56pm

      One of the things that seperates us from the animal world is our compassion. Apparently, these folks are much closer to animals than the majority of our species
      ***
      I personally DO NOT believe in EVOLUTION, but people (I use the term loosely.) like them, certainly are a good argument for DEVOLUTION!

      Report Post » Mil Mom  
  • CS_GUY
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:56pm

    I would like to formally request the execution and dismemberment of Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne for crimes against humanity.
    They deserve worse……….

    Report Post »  
    • edmundburk
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:39pm

      @ROSE-ELLEN- just when I want to give up on you say something really wise!

      Report Post » edmundburk  
  • Gunonesis
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:54pm

    These best part of these two commie clowns ran down their fathers leg.

    Report Post » Gunonesis  
    • 912er
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:06pm

      If my cat had kittens that (after birth) would be a burden on be (food & litter), and I bagged them up and tossed them in a river, I bet I would end up in jail. This society is sick. I weep for the future. (if there is one)

      Report Post » 912er  
    • Dismayed Veteran
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:36pm

      I disagree. The best part of them ran down their mothers leg and became a brown stain on the mattress.

      Report Post » Dismayed Veteran  
    • TheSoundOf Truth
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:28am

      um gross….?

      Report Post » TheSoundOf Truth  
  • Temporal
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:54pm

    As has already been pointed out elsewhere, a true “ethicist” is a rarity. Most are after-the-fact shills for what’s already taking place. There was no shortage of “ethicists” who endorsed Hitler’s “social programs” when it was politically correct to do so. Only a few clinical professionals, like Bohnhoffer Sr., dared to speak out. His son, a Lutheran pastor, was eventually hanged by Hitler.

    Report Post »  
  • RLTW
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:54pm

    This now makes clear the nudge/shove of abortion all these years, it’s there next step in evil.
    Who said “change the way people think”
    “”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’.””

    Report Post »  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:29pm

      totally arbitray and tyranical to claim that an innocent human has no inherent value.tatake away one;s life and you’ve taken away the possibility of all values and morals.What is more evil then absence of good[existence].

      Report Post »  
  • FlatFoot
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:54pm

    This is your life, America.

    And, obviously, there is no God.

    Report Post » FlatFoot  
    • TruthHurts
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:14pm

      You did see they are from Australia, right?

      Report Post »  
    • Crazy Times
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:17pm

      No, that is your life Flatfoot.

      Go occupy a toliet.

      “Nazis- I hate these guys” – Indiana Jones

      Report Post » Crazy Times  
    • ccfonten
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:21pm

      NO. This is not MY America! My America is being bastardized by a bunch of godless, evil people.
      And I will do anything in my power to oppose them and stop them.

      Report Post » ccfonten  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:38pm

      TruthHurts
      You did see they are from Australia, right?
      ___________________________________
      If you search enough, you would find we have the same clap trap in America.

      Report Post »  
  • justangry
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:53pm

    WTH? Am I the only Paulbot unable to access the comment section on the Santorum piece saying colleges cause people to lose their religion, or is my computer wack?

    Report Post » justangry  
    • momprayn
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:01pm

      Same here… i tried right after it was posted and a long time afterwards — nope

      Report Post »  
    • FlatFoot
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:05pm

      I dunno about KookyOldBigotbots but I can’t load it either. It’s this craptastic abomination of a website.

      Whatever (and whomever, possibly) they’re using to power this entire website and the comments sections, it truly is a steaming pile of dung. One of the worst websites for viewing and commenting I have ever seen. It makes the AOL and Yahoo websites of old look clean and professional.

      Report Post » FlatFoot  
    • justangry
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:02pm

      Oh and I forgot… Those two people creep me out.

      Report Post » justangry  
  • Steven63
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:52pm

    These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society.

    Report Post »  
    • Hollywood
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:55pm

      One could only have hoped the policy they espouse, WAS in effect when they were born,as they are obviously SEVERELY Mentally,and ethically challenged

      Report Post » Hollywood  
    • CatB
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 9:29pm

      When I was pregnant my son was a “person” from the moment I knew he existed … didn’t have to wait until his birth …. these people are sick!

      Report Post »  
    • wrightsrock08
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 10:41pm

      When do these “Ethicists” consider a human a person then? I was under the impression that once a child is conceived they are a person. As my friend says “It is my opinion….but these “Ethicists” should not be considered “persons” either….because you have to be human first! Grrrrr! So, does that mean we can “abort” them!?! Sure would be a lot less evil in the world if we can send them to meet their maker! These “Ethicists” are godless, and heartless….and there is no way a “good” person would even consider such a heinous act. Seriously….I would like to know how murder is even remotely “ethical”!?! There are now laws in place that allow people to abandon their children in “safe zones”, a.k.a. a hospital, or a police station. How hard is it to do that….or sign a piece of paper placing the child up for adoption? Seriously!?! There are so many people willing to love and raise them. Me included! I really hope there is special hell for abominable creatures such as these!

      Report Post »  
  • rs9
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:52pm

    And you don’t thoink there will be death panels in governent run healthcare, remember the fit over Sarah just saying teh words death panel. it’s always about the financial cost or the convience of the parents. If being human is not of itself reason for ascribing a right to life then What The Hell is the reason for ascribing a right to life? Does one have to blessed by Pope Obama before having a right to life? Do you have to be a registered democrat voter?

    Report Post »  
    • 57states
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:02pm

      well said!!!!

      Report Post » 57states  
    • TaraJanes
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:44pm

      it’s called IPAP…not death panel. It’s all about wording with these people.

      Report Post »  
  • ss1129
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:51pm

    I didnt even finish the whole article. I cant stand the stupidity of people today. When you are born….if someone takes away your right to live, thats murder. WTF is wrong with people?

    Report Post »  
  • Alan
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:51pm

    So what’s the new cutoff date for abortion, 40 years? Sure would make for well behaved kids and teens.

    Report Post »  
  • AvengerK
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:50pm

    Ah, the moral bankruptcy of the liberal academic elite. Euphemisms are important to these people so as to insinuate their ideas less “painfully” to the public and be less of a jolt to their conscience. So rather than infanticide, we’re talking about “after birth abortion”. Now these future professors haven’t stopped to examine “abortion”. It’s to abort, stop, end a pregnancy. Once a child is born what are you aborting? Please…don‘t think iit’s isolated. Obama’s very own Czar of Science John Holdren supports these ideas himself. In his instance it’s to “save the earth”. Don’t believe me?
    From Holdren’s book “Ecoscience”: “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution..[...]“. Yes you read that correctly, Obama’s Czar of Science believes the constitution allows him to force American women to have abortions.
    But there’s more: “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development.”.
    For the left to succeed it must negate peoples’ conscience. Thus religion and conservatism are assaulted. Humans are fodder

    Report Post »  
  • Steven63
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:50pm

    People who think and advocate this kind of stuff are a burden on society. Therefore, they should be aborted.

    Report Post »  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:49pm

    Right now I think these two devils in human skin need to be delivered for immediate execution under their code of ‘after birth abortions’ they want to commit murder – that is all it is! MURDER!!!

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • drago
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:55pm

      @Snow.
      I agree, those that subscribe to this mantra, need to be first in line for euthanasia…….

      Report Post »  
    • dublinthewagons
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:16am

      Why don’t these murderers just say its above their paygrade. Obummer is a slick tonged devil on his way to hell, along with these yoyo’s

      Report Post »  
  • jakartaman
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:49pm

    Please give us some names

    Report Post »  
  • Steven63
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:49pm

    This is actually being given serious consideration? WE are responsible for the health and well-being of these infants because they cannot care for themselves. Now, in the name of self-interest and the ‘well-being of the family’ we are going to justify termination of the defenseless?

    Absolutely sick. I want no part of a species that considers this a reasonable alternative to the ‘burden’ of caring for a non-perfect child.

    Report Post »  
  • cookcountypatriot
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:48pm

    these sick ,twisted ,demented people are the cancer of our society…come lord jesus, come quickly please

    Report Post » cookcountypatriot  
  • TSUNAMI-22
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:48pm

    Sick people.

    Report Post »  
  • NOBALONEY
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:47pm

    Illinois State Senator Obama was opposed to personhood. President Obama’s edicts, executive orders, and ‘going around’ Congress. lord and messiah Obama sez,‘ resistance is futile’.

    Report Post » NOBALONEY  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:40pm

      “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. ”

      So babies don’t flinch from pain?

      Babies don’t cry when they are uncomfortable?

      Report Post »  
  • Dougral Supports Israel
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:46pm

    They don’t like to call it infanticide or euthanasia? How about murder? What kind of ethicists are they anyway?

    Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:54pm

      euphemisms are very important to the left. “fetus or blastocyst” instead of baby for instance. It‘s very Orwellian in it’s nature. We’ve seen this throughout history. You have to take away someone’s humanity before you can begin “justifying” killing them. You can’t call the child a baby or an infant. It must now be “after-birth abortion”. This is the environment men like Barack Obama and his czar of science John Holdren have marinated in for years. The leftist, academic bubble.

      Report Post »  
    • eclectric
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 4:18pm

      What’s up with all the comments about liberalism. I don’t see that as an issue here at all. I am liberal in many ways…people should be allowed to live as they will without hurting others. I have been condoning killing children up to the age of reason (5 or 6) for a long time…tongue-in-cheek. What is the difference if it is in the womb or not if it has no knowledge of its “self?” My child was one pound when he was born and I could never have killed him. He was human. How would he have been non-human a few moments before he came out? How can a 1 year old be any more of a human than my son was? Abortion is morally wrong! Period! That is what these philosophers are trying show. They don’t say infanticide but are sarcastically explaining exactly that so that people will make the correct moral judgement – STOP KILLING BABIES IN OR OUT OF THE WOMB!!!!!

      Report Post »  
  • chameleonx
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:46pm

    Abortion is a touchy subject and many people could never understand why a woman would chose to abort her baby. I feel women should be allowed to have an abortion if they wanted to. But they should avoid all the risk in getting pregnant. Why not have the man use a condom or the woman use a item in order not to get pregnant. I believe adoption is a better choice for a kids who are new born.

    Report Post »  
    • marvel
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:23pm

      Many people cannot understand why someone would choose to kill another person, especially a helpless child. Abortion stops a beating human heart, and ends the life of a vulnerable child who has already learned to recognize voices, such as the voice of the mother and others outside the womb.

      Report Post » marvel  
    • hopetookmychange
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:42pm

      Touchy! NO @@@@! I am confident the baby would classify this as a little more than touchy. Oh wait, the baby inst around any more to find how they “felt” being aborted. I am so sick of brain dead evil rationalizing BAFOONS. STHU and go practice your rights and feelings in HELL! Oh, Im sorry, that’s touchy.

      Report Post »  
    • 1casawizard
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 8:53pm

      Every one who ever lived was a fetus at one time. The libs are trying to twist and dehumanize this topic just like they do all others.

      Report Post » 1casawizard  
    • TheSoundOf Truth
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:25am

      as if condoms are SOOOOOOOOOOOO reliable.

      How about this: Why not read a darn book or do something productive instead of humping all the time. Jesus H Christ…are you nymphos no better than rabbits in spring time? Try evolving, you neanderthal. I hear it’s all “the rave”.

      Report Post » TheSoundOf Truth  
    • Ladypenelope
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 1:57pm

      A fetus shouldn’t even be called such. Let’s call it what it is: b-a-b-y!

      What about abortion in the case of rape? I know that conceptions are not common but a baby doesn’t know how he was conceived; he just wants his right to exist!

      SAVE THE BABY HUMANS!

      Report Post » Ladypenelope  
    • Ladypenelope
      Posted on March 1, 2012 at 2:26pm

      Save the baby humans!

      Report Post » Ladypenelope  
  • Razorhunters
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:45pm

    need to put these sick sobs out of their misery…

    a call for open season should be proclaimed.

    Report Post » Razorhunters  
    • robinakilt
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:53pm

      We can call your open season “stupid person abortions” or “evolutional abortions,” that way we keep it politically correct and we are not referring to them as a person but a fetus. It is the same thing but by giving it a different name that makes everything OK!

      Report Post » robinakilt  
    • PaxInVeritate
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 7:56pm

      Please understand that the these two souls are exactly who Jesus Christ came into the world, suffered and died on the Cross, and rose from the dead for. Please fast and pray for the conversion of their souls. No one is beyond His Merciful Forgiveness. Prepare for the Second Coming is at hand, and God wants all His children to be with Him when Heaven is made manifested on Earth. Sadly, in part because we did not pray enough for these souls, many will refuse His Love and Mercy.

      Report Post » PaxInVeritate  
    • Xyskalla
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 11:54pm

      The ethicists are actually right. I‘ve been saying for decades that it’s the logical implication of abortion. The moral status of a newborn is comparable with that of a fetus, so why not?

      And the moral status of an infant is comparable with that of a newborn.

      The moral status of a toddler is comparable with that of an infant.

      The moral status of a preschooler is comparable with that of a toddler.

      And the moral status of a primary school-aged child is comparable with that of a preschooler.

      Of course the moral status of a preadolescent is comparable with that of a primary school-aged child.

      And the moral status of an adolescent is comparable with that of a preadolescent.

      And the moral status of a young adult is comparable with that of an adolescent.

      The moral status of an middle adults is comparable with that of young adults.

      And the moral status of seniors is comparable with that of middle adults.

      Yes, they are correct. The moral status is comparable. It’s all murder.

      Every last bit of it, from fetuses to seniors, they’re all just different stages of the life of a human, they’re all precious in the sight of God almighty, who will avenge the weak and helpless on the day He judges the living and the dead, and to kill one that hasn’t done anything wrong is flat-out murder, plain and simple. It’s black and white, there is no gray in this. So yes, they are correct.

      Report Post »  
    • Razorhunters
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:48am

      sounds good to me rob

      Report Post » Razorhunters  
    • RedDawn2012
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:31am

      I believe burning at the stake is most appropriate for demons like these. I volunteer to light the match.

      Report Post » RedDawn2012  
1 2 3 ... 32

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love