Recently there was an article called, Analyst Infanticide argument shouldn't surprise, discussing a position being propounded in the Journal of Medical Ethics, titled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” Shocked yet? If not…give this a little time…more is coming.
In this article he outlines their views by say:
“They claim the child is not a person until they are capable of understanding they are a sentient being and until then “the interests of actual people over-ride the interest of merely potential people.”This isn’t some new and startling view just now being adopted because our consciences have been seared by millions of abortions in America. He notes that;
“Gualberto Garcia Jones, of Personhood USA, said the statements in the article should not shock to anybody, as they have been the same views advocated by Peter Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton who also has argued for the right to kill infants.”
“Jones pointed out that Singer is a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne, where Minerva teaches.”
“Last year appearing on “Up with Chris Hayes” Singer said. “A person is a being with some awareness of who they are, existing beyond simply the physical organism.”
“When asked if that would exclude a four month old baby, he said, “Possibly. I don’t think that’s problematic to say a four month old baby is not actually a person, that’s simply true.
“Singer wrote as long ago as 1979:“Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons.” In 1993, he stated that newborns should not be considered a person until after at least 30 days after birth and doctors should kill some disabled babies immediately.” The slippery slope everyone warned of years ago was already foundational to their thinking. It is also more wide spread than we might think. He goes on to say; Peter Breen, founder of the Thomas More Society, says the problem with the premise is there is no way to have a firm definition of when one should qualify for legal protection. “The logical conclusion of saying that someone’s life is worth less at one month after birth rather than later is where do you draw the line. You either have the right to life or you don’t.”Now note this:
“He went on to say that the authors were simply following the logical progression that began when abortion was legalized in the 1970s”This author goes on to say:
“In the beginning abortion advocates said the child was simply a lump of cells. Then with ultrasound technology it became obvious that wasn’t so,” Breen said. “Then the argument moved to suggesting that it was acceptable to abort a child out of the womb such as partial birth abortion, to finally refusing medical care for a child who survives a ‘botched’ abortion.”
"While some in the pro-abortion community would deny it, a key element in the movement to move personhood beyond birth is a lack of belief that human beings are unique creatures made in the image of God."The terms Pro-life and Pro-Choice are misnomers adopted by the media. Pro-Life people are not pro-life. They are anti-abortion. The media and the left are so fond of pointing out how as a group seem to support the death penalty, claiming hypocrisy. They are opposed to the murder of innocent life. Those who face the death penalty are being executed for heinous crimes. They are not innocent and they will not be murdered.
Those who support abortion are not Pro-Choice, they are pro-abortion. They support the murder of innocent life while emotionally and dramatically opposing the death penalty for those who lack every vestige of innocence due to their actions. Who are the hypocrites? Which group sounds insane to you?
Let’s not have any mistakes over this:
There is only one reason to be in support of abortion; you don’t believe it is murder.
There is only one reason to be against abortion; you believe it is murder!
There is only one reason to believe that abortion is murder; you believe in God!
There is only one reason to believe that abortion isn’t murder; you don’t believe in God!
Of course it really depends on who your God is! In ancient times it was common practice to sacrifice infants to the various Baal gods of the ancient Canaanites, and this was even common practice in first century BCE when the Carthaginians fought the Romans. It is believed that Hannibal had an older brother sacrificed in such a manner. Why? Because they believed this would guarantee good harvests and good fortune for their people. It was an economic issue.
Why is society presumably doing this today? Because if may impact the lives of the women economically or emotionally if the child is born. We moderns with our scientific rhetoric and psycho babble are as guilty of murder as were the ignorant ancients. They did it in the name of their gods and we do to prove we have no God.