‘Journal of Medical Ethics’ Stands by Publication of ‘After-Birth Abortions’ Article
- Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:28pm by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
Yesterday, The Blaze reported the logic of two ethicists who suggested that termination of a newborn — a practice they called “after-birth abortion” — should be allowable on the basis of newborns having the same status of that of fetuses. The article by Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
(Image via Facebook)
The Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) has since written a post on its blog stating that it has received several emails questioning its decision to publish such an article in a respected journal on ethics. JME stands by its decision. Here‘s what the journal’s editor Julian Savulescu writes:
As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend its publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.
The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.
Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject.
[...]
The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument. Moreover, it supports freedom of ethical expression.
Savulescu also writes that those with opposing views to Giubilini and Minvera are welcome to write well-thought, “coherent” responses for consideration for publication in the journal.
Savulescu also responds to several “hostile, abusive, threatening responses” that were made in the comments section on the Blaze’s post about the journal article. He writes that he considers many of the comments disturbing and as showing that “proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”
The Blaze has full-time comment moderators who work as quickly as possible to remove comments that violate our comment policy or terms of use, which includes those that are considered “abusive, harassing, threatening or vulgar.”
The Blaze story did generate close to 1,000 comments in the first 24 hours and registered over 7,000 “likes” on Facebook.
JME is a peer-reviewed journal owned by the Institute for Medical Ethics and BJM group. According to its website, it features stories on the “ethical aspects of health care, as well as case conferences, book reviews, editorials, correspondence, news and notes.”
Carousel image courtesy Shutterstock.com
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 700 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 534 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 360 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 357 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 360 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 274 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (325)
MCDAVE
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:23pmI have a strong rational argument ..Thou shall not kill…
Report Post »ChanMan
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 1:12pmThere is a difference between “to kill” and “to murder.” What these ingrates are standing on is the platform of MURDER.
Report Post »If you kill an attacker, that is in the process of trying to murder you, you did not commit murder. The Commandment, in the original language, says, “Thou shall not commit murder.” Don’t get it mixed up because the political left has changed the language in some Bibles to accomedate their feelings and try to erase the Truth; making pacifists Christians they can control.
Vickie Dhaene
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 1:13pmExactly !! The Anti-Christ is among us. God have Mercy on Our Good Souls.
Report Post »Hollywood
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 2:55pmMore accurately, Thou shall not MURDER,as per the original Hebrew.
Report Post »Maranatha
deloclem
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:21pmI’m still trying to get my jaw up off the floor! Unbelievable.
Report Post »becauseitmatters
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 4:27pmI won’t feel bad for being a “fanatic opposed to the very values of a liberal society,” as the article suggests. I DO believe in freedom to speech, so don’t be surprised when some of us stand up to goons like these- and by the way; they can keep their “liberal society.” I don’t want any part of it.
Report Post »nonofmybiznez
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:13pmBefore they kill a baby, they should be made to hold it and look it straight in the face and make sure they kill it in front of a crowd of people. This should haunt them all the days of their lives and into the beyond. They should be know as a baby killer.
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 1:08pmExcept it wouldn’t stop them.They are wedded to their ideology of distinguishing a person from a living human being. That ideology trumps even witnessing the suffering of a new born being killed.Once the demonic entered the culture where the concept “person” is separated from the biological living being-you get a terry schiavo slowly being dehydrated to death and the nurses are there giving her a suppositiory for a fever[that is health care] but not letting a drop of water touch her parched face as her eyes are bugging out from dehydration[she's no longer a person but a vegatable so should not be kept alive artiicially and water keeps one alive.]And the media labels these nurses heroic.Our natural empathy and compassion for a suffering from lack of water defenseless person has been hijacked by these inhuman demonic ideas .When not all live humans are persons then the flood gates are open and it’s open season on the defenseless as these“ ethicists” views are gaining tracttion in high places in our culture.. We’re back to the pre-human law of the jungle -might makes right.The only bulwark left against this latest demonic inhuman intrusion into the culture is the catholic church.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:38pmYo Rose Ellen:
You actually had me agreeing with you for once until the last couple of sentences. Scripturally, there is no pre-human … there is Adam and Eve. But, most importantly salvation is NOT found in the Catholic church. It is found in Christ and Christ ALONE !
Report Post »Salamander
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:09pmHey, Windchaser! I like your post much better than mine! You go right to the source of the problem!
Report Post »Salamander
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:07pmHey, why stop at birth? Imagine if parents could ‘abort’ their children until they become of age! Heck, the 16 year old gets harassed at school and the parents are afraid he/she might react violently toward their classmates one day! Solution–adolescent abortion! End one life so the lives of their classmates is not at risk! Zero court costs, one less mouth to feed, no further parenting hassles, no liability for bad conduct by a family member! What could be more civil? Hey, it sure would have gotten my attention at school if I thought a bad report card could be THE END of it all!
Report Post »nonofmybiznez
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:15pmYou’re absolutely right. This whole line of thinking is sick. Throw grandma off the cliff because she is old and just doesn’t have any use anymore. Just like throwing out the garbage. How do you feel about that being your future as well?
Report Post »RayOne
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:10pmIf the kid brings home bad grades, or if Grandmother puts to much salt in the soup ?!
Report Post »leri
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 2:58pmFunny,but probally their next agenda.These so called Euthenist are just
Report Post »socialpaths,nice name for Murders of innocense, the weaker of society, or
the sick. Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, what a glorious day that will be.
kentuckypatriot
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:52pmI am in disbelief over this article. How a doctor or nurse can murder an innocent child and have to live with that is beyond my comprehension. I’m sure there is a nice warm spot in HELL waiting for all of those involved.
Report Post »Triplets108
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 2:54pmAre these the same people that are against Capital Punishment?
Report Post »leri
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 3:03pmYour exactly right,Jesus said Woe! unto anyone that hurts one of
Report Post »these littles one, it would be better if a stone had been wrap around
his neck and dropped into the sea!
USACommoner
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 3:14pmWow, Triplets. You are probably right. Once again, we’re back to calling good evil and evil is good. Only in this case, the good (and innocent) are being sacrificed.
Proponents of eugenics have now renamed themselves “ethicists”. How dastardly clever of them.
Report Post »marcus_arealius
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:51pmTo follow up, my previous comment is not a threat but is to point out the absurdity of how the value of human life can be degraded to zero.. These ethicists are mentally deranged, perhaps criminally insane. At some point society will stop permitting the daily murder of the truly innocent. If we were to take their twisted perverted logic to an extreme, then why put any age limits on abortion? That day would be the beginning of the end of humanity.
Report Post »NoVampires
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:45pmSo the word ‘infanticide’ sounds better than murder. Maybe that’s how the ethicist sleep at night. Murder the kid because the beotch that bore it does not want it. The editor writes his rationale for publishi this rubbish “It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.” Really, where is this widely accepted, in Holland. The dutch have no credibility with their culture of death. The dutch are toast. The muslims will over take them in no time. So sad this is the only way to stop the baby killing madness overthere. They are the devil.
Report Post »anOpinion
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 10:29pmSo according to their definitions, if some nut kills all the newborns in a hospital maternity ward he wouldn’t be committing murder, because, babies are not yet considered “persons”. Vile.
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:35pm.
Report Post »I was just holding our new grand child, she was born yesterday at noon…..And I read this and wonder if these people will kill their own children one day?…………
armymp
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:01amWhy don’t we just consider abortion legal with kids up to 5 years old. This way you can just wipe the slate clean and start over if you don’t like the outcome. It would be totally acceptable to say, “We aborted our child at 260 weeks”.
Report Post »Restored One
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:28amThe Blaze has full-time comment moderators who work as quickly as possible to remove comments that violate our comment policy or terms of use, which includes those that are considered “abusive, harassing, threatening or vulgar.”
I find these people involved in this study everything above, especially abusive and vulgar.
Report Post »netmail
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:30amIf evil people keep leading the charge in the world it will come down to this:
1. Are you able to work and contribute to society? (If yes, you can live)
2. Do you agree with and defend our policies? (If yes, you can live)
All others will be deemed to be expendable at ANY age.
Report Post »db321
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:33amIt makes since why Liberals want God out of America – If killed a baby after it was born – I would hope that I did not have to ever account for the blood on my hands. Yes – voting for these idiots puts the blood on your hands.
They can try to remove God all they want – I just don’t think God is going anywhere and God is also not worried about Judgement day competing with the NFL.
Report Post »Restored One
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:33amThis is freaking Hitler studies. I can somewhat tolerate the Pro Choice conversation, but this is just insane. This makes PP appear mellow. I am going to have nightmares tonight. Well in this world I have them most nights, but this is just sick.
Report Post »cuinsong
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:36amYou have no ethics after this article! You are only singing the “The Devils Song” http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_10789987
Report Post »Ded-Bred
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:56amNoted philosopher, scholar and author of many books on ethics & morals Dr. James Rachaels used logical extension & rational reasoning in 1988: to summarize he pointed out if a fetus isn’t considered viable, then newborn babies aren’t either. Then we should discuss euthanasia. all the $$$ we’d save if we just sent Grandpa out into the frozen tundra. Plus we would be feeding polar bears and timber wolves.
Report Post »FormerLib
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 1:10amWTF is wrong with these idiots? An “after birth abortion” is no more possible than aborting a plane landing after it’s already on the ground. Once a child is born, ending it’s life is no longer an abortion but infanticide. Holy Lord, do words mean nothing anymore, or is everything open to being just a subjective “matter of opinion”? If this is what passes for intelligence in our culture, we are doomed.
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 1:51amWhen the government starts running the daycare centers, I recommend none of you consider leaving your child there……if they end up once juice box short, little Billy may have to be euthanized in the name of resource parity.
Report Post »PaxInVeritate
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 2:02amPlease, please do not spew vile hatred nor condemnation for it only helps Satan in stealing souls from God, yes, even your own if you fall into this trap. Fast and pray for the enlightenment of their souls to the harm they are doing to Jesus Christ. He is suffering for the loss of their souls if they refuse His Truth and Mercy. His thirst is for all souls to love Him and be with Him to enjoy His presence in the Paradise made by God the Father for all His Children. God can not force them to accept His Love, Mercy and Truth, but through our fasting and praying for them opens their hearts to the possibility of responding to His Graces. Love them as our Father Loves them. That is His comand.
Report Post »portague
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 3:15amThe article if you read it is worse then what is reported. The authors recommend no threshold to abortion but for it to be decided by a psycolgical and medical exame if said human being is a person. Critera mentioned in the article from what i gather would put the age of legal abortion up to age 2 if not slightly higher based on the exame.
Report Post »1accord
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 3:43am“‘infanticide’ sounds better than murder”.
I’d go the next step and say infanticide and murder sounds better than child sacrifice on the altar of Baal. Evil flourishes when good men do nothing. Heaven help us.
Report Post »pulguita
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 6:54amBut they are right in one aspect. There is no difference between a fetus and a newborn. I think that has been the point all along. The fetus is still a child, it is still murder.
Report Post »loriann12
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 7:02amCass Sustein shares this opinion. A person is not a person (or at least of any value) until it’s 2 years old. And you lose you’re value after age 50 (unless you’re an elite government person). Next they’ll be advocating for killing the elderly as mercy killings, because they’ve outlived their usefullness to society. Oh, wait, there’s already room for that in Obamacare.
Report Post »NickyLouse
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 7:27amMy 13-year old could not survive on her own. She is too lazy to get a job and would become (or rather, is) a beggar. The only thing that separates a fetus from a baby is location. Even a blastocyst has the potential to become only one thing at maturity. This argument is actually in favor of extreme positions that either we embrace death or we embrace life for all.
Report Post »DOWORKSON
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 8:29amThere seems to be little respect for the most defenseless in society,
Report Post »a very poor indication of a civilization’s ability to remain civilized.
old white guy
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 8:52am“freedom of ethicial expression” sorry folks but killing a newborn child is really not ethicial never mind that it is murder, immoral, abhorent and any other adjective indicating evil you may wish to use.
Report Post »ritonmom
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 9:22amCass Sunstein, Obama’s CZAR, thinks that infanticide should be legal up to 2 years old. These people are evil.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 9:29amFunny (ironic) the more “advanced” we say we are becoming, you know with science and liberal thought, the more and more we look like ancient barbaric cultures.
Report Post »missy123
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 10:04amThis is just plain GROSS!!!
Report Post »I can think of better descriptions but I’d be banned from The Blaze.
So this would mean what? That after a baby is born the mother would hear his cry or see his face and then say “Kill it” just because she wanted to?
OMG!
Just plain disgusting!
What has this society become?
Thank God I only have about 30 years left!
RJJinGadsden
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 10:31amStudents of Margaret Sanger!
Report Post »biohazard23
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 10:33amI just gave birth to my son last month. If ANYONE were to try to tell me that he is not a person and therefore is worthy of death, he would have one pi**ed off momma grizzly on his hands, not to mention a new daddy to contend with. These carbon-based organisms are pure evil, it’s as simple as that.
As I sit here looking at my sleeping little boy and at the pictures of my older daughters, I simply cannot imagine the depths of depravity these individuals must plumb in order to make their “arguments,” let alone with a straight face. Let’s all pray to God above that these demons NEVER reproduce. Kill that gene pool ASAFP…..
Report Post »Michael61
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 10:55amSlippery slope argument? Well, here you go, the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists promote infanticide which they call after-birth abortion.
Our society is going back to pagan, pre-Christian (pre-monotheistic), pre-historic morals, where it was perfectly OK to kill fetuses, to kill babies, to have sex with same sex, animals or children, or to kill sick and old people.
P.S. I am not even religious, I am an atheist, but…
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 10:58amTo add more to Ded Bred comments about seniors. I beleive the Russian story goes something like this.
Grandfather is sick and can no longer contribute. He is a drain on slim resources. The father of the house must protect the collective. He orders his son to give Grandpa a blanket. The son cuts it in half. When the father asked why he did that. The son replied: I am saving the other half for you.
I find that article against the basic ethics of the medical community. The first part of their oath is to do no harm.
Report Post »Bluebonnet
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 11:21amJust makes me want to sit down and cry. I don’t know the world we live in, anymore. The whole thing from politics to babies has sucked the life out of me, and we keep voting for death over life. Matt 12:24, O generation of vipers……………..
Listened to GB radio and already feel sick about some college student who wants her birth control paid for (at a Catholic College) because it will cost too much to buy (even tho she’s on a scholarship,
Report Post »Is she going for an education or to sleep around?)
PaxInVeritate
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 11:34am@ everyone who posts here. Again, instead of condemning and saying vile things, particularly when invoking the Lord (e.g. “Let’s all pray to God above that these demons NEVER reproduce.”), fast and pray for these lost souls. Jesus’ Passion was for these souls who live in darkness. His thirst on the cross is for all souls, even these two and those like them. To pray and fast for their conversion is to love and honor the Lord God. Anything less dishonors His Sacrifice.
@MISSY123 – “about 30 years left”? You have less time than that. All prophesies in Daniel and John (Revelations) are happening now. Fast and pray for the time is very short to prepare. The Lord is coming.
Report Post »Ron Staiger
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:45pm….freedom of ethical expression- TO JUSTIFY MURDER!
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 10:00pmof course people against abortion have always know that existentially there is no difference between an unborn fetus a moment priot to birth and a new born. .tBut people in favor of abortion have always dismissed these claims of anti abortion people on the grounds they were unscientic and that the supreme court has determined one is not human until live birth has occurred.We have been labeled religious fanatics ,unscientific and /or against the constituion[since the supreme court ruling]So of course we anti abortion people know that logically what these scientists are saying is not only biologically accurate.;it is logically arbitrary and capricious to allow the killing of a human when still inside but not a moment after it is outside the mother.The perversion of course as pro life people like myself see it -is that this biological reality should ethically call for abolishing of abortion -not for making a case for infanticide.I reject that our existential value is relative to others. The value of each human is self evident -as life is the primary worth ,value goodness,righ tetc-from which all others derive.The value of each human is the value of life itself-and we can’t separate the value of life itself from the life of the individual human who is aliveTake away the life from the human and you take awy the human.It is tyranical to take from an [innocent] human his life which is his self.Where is your authority?all new borns are dependant-this is captricious and tyranical.
Report Post »robert
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 10:04pm“The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn.”
Yes, we know what they argue. But they have some kind of mental disorder so what they argue, think, write or say, is just worthless drivel. I’ve never taken a stance on abortions in my entire life, but this smacks of something sinister.
I’ve read case studies wherein a subject was hypnotized and was told to go back in his/her life as far as he/she can remember, and the result everytime was a return to just before birth where the subject not only correctly described the surroundings he/she was in at the time, but revealed correctly conversations that were taking place during birth. I’m pretty sure that would be verifiable on a google search, though I haven’t tried to locate anything about it online myself.
There’s something dark and evil about this entire affair and the people connected with it.
Report Post »dogday
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:27amWhenever I feel the world’s gone mad, I read your posts, and thank God. The people who regularly comment on the Blaze, except for a few, are my heroes.
Report Post »oldsoldier10
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:45pmAfter-Birth Abortions er ah what??? what is the maximum time an abortion after birth can be performed? lets say someone born in 1961 can they be aborted now? How about a HUMAN being born yesterday can they be murdered today? THIS IS JUST AN ATTEMPT TO LEGALIZE MURDER!
Report Post »APD847
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:44pmBuddy, Francis Schaeffer warned iof this in the early 70′s in the wake of roe v. Wade. Of course, the liberals all denied it was even a possibility. Schaeffer warned it was inevitable. Your comment is a straight line of the trajectory this kind of thinking necessarily will usher in.
Report Post »Heck, look at Obama’s efforts to contain a ban on partial-birth abortion.That makes him the murder-in-chief and for many who call themselves “Christians” this is a peripheral matter. What does matter to them is overhauling the entire moral order – ****’s flaunting their perversions in the military in uniform, condom distribution to incoming soldiers on army bases, incoming soldiers being given tour of the sex bars when they arrive in Korea. I’ve seen this firsthand. So, so sad that our leaders don’t even care about the desire- let alone the need – for morality in public service. Little wonder, given that Barney Frank could parade around and wag his finger at those who rebuked him on the floor of Congress.
empatreides
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:49pmLet’s call it what it really is, besides murder, population control. If you can swing the moral compass of a nation to where they accept assisted suicide, abortion and limits on how many children they can have, you can then impose measures such as “after birth abortion” to control the growth of a society. Simply make it so that after birth includes people from the time their born to the time they cease being a productive member of society. Its sickening to think that liberals want to justify Infanticide as a moral measure. If our moral code is that of life, theirs is the code of death. They will impose population control on us one little piece at a time, and one day we will wake up to government sanctioned homicide at any time all in the name of global prosperity, environmental safety, and the good of the public. Its sick, its wrong, its immoral, and anyone who can defend such practices is insane. What happened to inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the persuet of happiness.
Report Post »USACommoner
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 3:34pmEMPAT: Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. It’s all about “the good of society”. Individual rights would be nonexistent and the State would become the final authority on life/death matters.
If you follow the logical argument, where would one draw the line? How old is too old? Should we just stop at 2 years or…?
Report Post »Razorhunters
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:40pmNew Madrid Fault Line Mega Quake Has Started Sink HOLES IN CANADA 2012 Is May 2011 Pt 1 Of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l6qNj1v98v4
is many vids…just look for madrid line has started…
Report Post »Razorhunters
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:31pmUPDATE: VERIFIED ! New Madrid earthquake in DAYS – IMHO – HAARP or “quake wave” precursor
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s329RCywTzo
JACKTHETOAD
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:27pmHey, Razor. All those sinkholes in Canada don’t look good at all. Good links. Thanks.
Report Post »Razorhunters
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 10:51pmnp glad could assist.
Report Post »AmericanStrega
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 1:48pmAre the sink holes also created by those chem-trails you post about?
Report Post »woodrowsux
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:25pmbased on these “ethicists” moral equivocation between fetal abortion and actual infanticide outside the womb – the next logical step is to include teenagers like my 16 year old autistic son, who functions in many regards like an infant and incapable of caring for himself. If we as parents (G-D forbid) wanted to ‘abort’ him @ age 16 or 18 is that OK?? In Oregon it is OK according to their assisted suicide law for oneself – how far are we as a nation – from “offering” this “treatment” as an option under Obamacare – for the ‘lack of social value’ of these inferior citizens. It’s been done before.
Report Post »muddpuddle
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:35pmEventually they would say your son is a burden to society, much like an eight cylinder suv. First they will give you the choice to keep him, but you‘ll be taxed do high that you’ll think twice. The scary part…..is that society will think its a good idea.
Report Post »APD847
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:47pmWoodrow, there was a Colorado gov., I believe it was, a few years (Buddy Roemer?) who made the proposal to allow infanticide for those children born with birth defects. He was confronted by a horde of mothers with thousands of signatures rebuking his attempt, upon which he reneged.
Report Post »cosette
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 9:59amEugenics Noun: The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding in order to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. The belief in this practice is one which was held by Margret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood. Her desire was to eliminate the black race. She believed them to be less evolved than other races, thereby making them persona non grata in the gene pool. I’ve often wondered how blacks could be so loyal to a party that holds Sanger up as some kind of human rights advocate. The public school system does not teach the truth about so many liberal icons. Another one called to mind is F.D.R. That monster put Japanese, Italian and German Americans in “relocation camps” during WW2. They lost everything they owned with the exception of what they could carry with them. Only Japanese were since compensated. So much truth buried by so many liars.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 10:37amCOSETTE, The dems equally worship Cecil Rhodes as well. But if you slip up and refer to a man named **** as ****, then you are a racist.
Report Post »Lorali
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:20pmIf they feel a full grown baby is to be classified as a fetus, then that makes a fetus a . . . huh. . . a baby! Who da thunk? Their justification just blows the entire pro-abortion theory of viable life form out of the water now. Doesn’t it? The devil is twisting the hearts and minds of so many lost souls, that we truly need a spiritual rebirth across the entire world.
Report Post »USAMEDIC3008
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:30pmSatan knows he has only a short time.
Report Post »If you think its bad just wait ,You aint seen
nothing yet..
Nightfall
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:52pmI think that was kind of the point. I saw the article as playing devil’s advocate and saying “see how silly the argument is” to those who do not think a fetus is alive, or even human.
Report Post »nonofmybiznez
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:34pmAmen
Report Post »Ron_WA
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:13pmI thought we already had this in America – it’s called the death penalty … but isn’t a trial & appeals required first?
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 10:14pmNot only do we have a trial-it is used as punishment for having willfully committed a greiveous offence-murdering an innocent person.of course we kill innocent men women and childdren in war too-often deliberatly and always knowing our weapons will kill innocent people.And combatant s are fair game to be killed.it is most wrong -these preemptive wars and dropping bombs on a house or village to get some bad guys when we know there are also innocent people there too.We have gottenso callous about killing -in wars and in abortion-and i believe one day this mindset to allow infantacide based on a consensus [ enogh people in the new borns life who want to kill him/her] will be part of our culture too.of course it is already happening -in many hospitals and has been for years.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 10:38pmRose, I’m pleasantly surprised to say that I find that our opinions are the same on this topic. Very surprised, in a good way. Slainte!
Report Post »MemphisViking
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 12:22pmRose-Ellen, what is your proposed solution when the bad guys who are trying to kill you are hiding behind innocent civilians?
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:06pmCome on, Blaze! Put “ethics” and “ethicists” in quotation marks in this article. Or does the Blaze staff actually think that infanticide can be “ethical”?
Report Post »DogTags
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:57pmThe Journal of Medical Ethics defends its publication of “ethicists” who favor infanticide, or in plain English, the barbaric killing of children.
“The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument. Moreover, it supports freedom of ethical expression.”
“Freedom of ethical expression?” What is that? It is apparent that the Journal’s idea about ethics is a relativistic one; a morality based on the whims of whoever wins a majority of converts to his “sound rational argument.” It is an ethic not based on an absolute, objective standard. Ethics without an absolute, objective mooring is nothing but might equals right.
We live in a sick world where these “aruguments” are considered “sound” and “rational.”
These “ethicists” are nothing but flesh and blood reveling in doing the bidding of demons.
Report Post »objectivetruth
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 9:41amWhat they claim as ethics actually is better known as abject intellectual reasoning.In order for it to be about ethics it would require certain moral and emotional arguments to be included and defended or at least explained.This would actually narrow the scope of their argument drastically.
Report Post »AnonCmnt
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:55pmJonathan Swift wrote a well-thought out, “coherent” response in 1729. It’s entitled “A Modest Proposal for Preventing the children of poor people in Ireland from being a burden to their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick.” Do you think the Journal of (Alleged) Medical Ethics would see fit to print it? After all it just takes the “rational” concept of after-birth abortion and “logically” applies it further so that these after-birth fetuses cease being a burden on their parents and, instead “contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands” Maybe reading Mr. Swift’s work would help JME become ethical enough to figure out that after-birth abortion is no less unethical, immoral, illegal, and wrong today than it was when Swift published his satirical proposal that parents sell their troublesome after-birth fetuses to rich people who would eat them and tan their skin for clothing. Perhaps JME fails to see the fault of the logic is that fetuses should not be considered inhuman. May God have mercy on our souls.
Report Post »LegionOfOne
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 1:13amBlast, I was trying to remember who wrote that. Good call.
Report Post »UBETHECHANGE
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:53pmFabian socialism is a cancer in the world and an abomination to humanity.
Report Post »rambosharley
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 5:36amIsn’t that the TRUTH! I‘m so upset over both of these articles I can’t think right now. I don’t understand how anyone could sit and even talk about things like this! I’m just beside myself….very disturbed!
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:49pmFreaks.
Report Post »DogTags
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:44pmEasing human suffering sounds like a Christian tenet. In fact, Jesus said if you feed the hungry, clothe the naked or visit the sick it’s as if you are doing those things for him. But, would Jesus have advocated starving your children to feed the hungry, or stripping your neighbor to clothe to the naked, or killing human embryos to research a cure for paralysis? His example was about sacrificing himself for an unfit world, not about sacrificing some for the benefit of others.
Secular humanism, on the other hand, does promote such a self-serving approach. Secular Humanism is the doctrine emphasizing a person’s capacity for self-realization through reason without regard to religion or the supernatural. This ethical theory and practice embraces scientific inquiry and human fulfillment in the natural world and repudiates the importance of a belief in God. There are no rewards or punishments in a “next life.” In other words, what we do in life will not echo in eternity. This humanist “truth” does not provide an inner moral restraint.
Report Post »DogTags
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:50pmHumanism, however, borrows some Christian moral values. Humanists see easing human suffering as a goal of its faith. This laudable humanitarianism (concern for human welfare) should not be confused with self-serving humanism. The trouble with humanistic humanitarianism is its utilitarian ethos– the ends justify the means. A person’s value, to a humanist, is wrapped up in his utility. A person who is aware of his own existence is more valuable than an infant or embryo. That paralyzed people will walk one day is an end that justifies the killing of embryonic humans today. A person shouldn’t have to be burdened with a baby having Down Syndrome.
We certainly live in a sick world where “arugments” like these are considered “sound” and “rational.” They have refused to retain God in their consciousness and He has given them over to a reprobate mind.
These wicked people are nothing but flesh and blood doing the bidding of demons.
Report Post »ArmyWifeNiz
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 7:21amFantastic comments, Dogtags!
Report Post »AJAYW
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:41pmWith this line of thinking anyone can be put to death if they don’t fit in to what the person or persons in charge based on liberal society way of thinking. ???
Report Post »AJAYW
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:50pmAlso it fits the muslims way of thinking be a muslim or die
Report Post »vtxphantom
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:34pmThese people are truly sick!
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:29pmKill dem babies. Dey gonna grow up to be no good swamp people. That’s ethical, kill the evil that might be, but let the evil live that is. Liberals, Pro Abortion, Anti Death Penalty.
Report Post »Muck Raker
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:22pmTemba, with his arms wide open.
Report Post »TheDM
Posted on February 29, 2012 at 6:24pmIt’s absolutely hilarious that you take your username from a series that follows the adventures of a military and scientific branch of an idealized secular and socialist government. No money, no real economics on Earth, repeated mentionings of having moved on past primitive beliefs and emotions…
Really, it’s pretty dang funny.
Report Post »ColoradoMaverick
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:28pmI guess the constitution does allow people to admit they love killing innocent babies.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:34pmIt’s just jaw-dropping stuff. I really don‘t think I’ve ever met anyone with such a mindset. Oh and Mr. “Sav”..you’re a wuss. So are the so-called scientists. I sent nice emails to them for a radio debate, but they hid under their desks. Not surprising.
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:39pmI hope OWS doesn’t hear of this, they ain’t gonna let that fly.
Report Post »tersky
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 10:30pmI suspect that we all know people who think like this, but they (at some level, realizing it’s sick logic) aren’t fools enough to say it aloud.
Report Post »