Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by Danbones

 

When an animal (humans) started making judgments, that was the first slippery slope, and we have been sliding down since. Thankfully, Life minimized the depths of our vanity.

Gen 3:22-23 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

As time wears on and evil and wickedness become morally acceptable, with each passing day i am more and more convinced Humanity should be utterly destroyed.

The issue is much too complex to look at in a basic pro-life/pro-choice dichotomy.

There are so many factors that come with having a child. One of the most important to consider is the life that the child is being born into. In certain, unfortunate situations, it seems like the merciful thing to spare the child a life of hardship by ending it before conciseness has a chance to develop.

That is my opinion.

And, while some will adamantly argue that every fertilized embryo is entitled to live out their existence from start to finish, regardless of the circumstances, this just isn't a realistic way to think in the 21st century context.

We are no longer born into a practical world where there is room for everyone. A person born to a 15 year old mother, left to their own devices in a competitive modern setting, is about as likely to achieve even minimal success in life as a euthanized fetus.

Misfortune and poverty have a compounding effect that keeps the poor down, despite what some may believe about "equal opportunity" in america. A concept that is completely ridiculous, to say the least...

Life is precious, but it should be allowed to develop in an environment that will foster its full potential... rather then squandered simply because of the ill-fated decisions of a teenaged girl, or the malicious intent of a rapist...

IMO, life isn't life until you have begun living it. Of course, this takes me back to my opening statement that the issue is far to complicated for it to be a simply partisan issue.

We're More Alike Than Different

www.new-vis.com...

Various treatments including Hemisync, binaurals.

The use of Hemi-Sync in the therapy-learning environment of the young child with a sensorimotor disability is yielding promising results. Both clinical experience and preliminary research indicates that the addition of Hemi-Sync signals (containing frequencies which produce more theta patterns in the brain) to the background music increases the child's focus of attention and creates a mental set of open receptivity. Positive feedback and suggestions about ease and success of learning are provided while the child is in a focused state and is more accepting of new possibilities. In a pilot study of 20 developmentally disabled children (Morris 1986), each child participated in therapy to remediate feeding and pre-speech problems for an initial period without music in the Learning Environment. This was followed by a period in which calming music was added. A third period introduced Hemi-Sync signals into the same music.

Not only do disabled people have rights to live and be respected, but to services too.

And I would never give up on anyone.

reply to post by greeneyedleo

If it is okay to kill a baby in the womb, why is not ok to kill it outside the womb? In both cases, a baby is dependent on another human. The only difference is one inside another body and one is outside another body. And reasons should not matter.....for one does not need a reason to eliminate a pregnancy....so why would one need a reason to eliminate a baby born?

Foetus life is dependant on his/hers mother much more then on a society in order to survive. Only from certain age foetus can survive without living mother and only for limited period of time.
Baby can fully survive without its mother with the help of society.
This is pretty serious difference in my opinion.
If you will look at it from any angle - foetus is much less independent then a baby.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by greeneyedleo

 

If it is okay to kill a baby in the womb, why is not ok to kill it outside the womb? In both cases, a baby is dependent on another human. The only difference is one inside another body and one is outside another body. And reasons should not matter.....for one does not need a reason to eliminate a pregnancy....so why would one need a reason to eliminate a baby born?

Foetus life is dependant on his/hers mother much more then on a society in order to survive. Only from certain age foetus can survive without living mother and only for limited period of time.
Baby can fully survive without its mother with the help of society.
This is pretty serious difference in my opinion.
If you will look at it from any angle - foetus is much less independent then a baby.

really? a baby can survive all on its own? doesn't someone have to feed it? keep it warm? and so on? a baby born and just left there on a table will die.

Sorry, but both are 100% completely dependent on another human being. I see no difference. And many women have babies and they are not the mother but just an incubator (surrogates)...so you gotta take the "mother" out of the factor....BOTH are 10000000% dependent on another human being.

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by Danbones

 

When an animal (humans) started making judgments, that was the first slippery slope, and we have been sliding down since. Thankfully, Life minimized the depths of our vanity.

Gen 3:22-23 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Oh my, no we're not going back to the animal kingdom, this realm is the testing ground half light and half dark and we're actually to make judgements as you call them, to determine and grow our consciousness. When pencils go down, and they do everyone, in the tests, frequency and overall consciousness, which is by the way, your very soul itself, your essence, will either be a bigger orb or a smaller orb.

We are not primordials here.

This is the school.

I agree with possibly being wrong in judging the person, I should not have called them morons. I should have said they were acting moronic.

reply to post by Unity_99


I am definitely a liberal. However, this is ridiculous. If babies have no more of a right to live than fetuses, then how long until old people and, hell, anyone has no moral right to live? Probably just around the corner in this "liberal" society, unfortunately. I'm positive this thinking will lead to it being okay to kill off populations of poor, elderly or disabled people, and eventually people who simply aren't up to par.

One problem with liberalism is that it just doesn't recognize the basic human right to live, it doesn't see people being valuable just for being who they are.

In fact, let me let you in on a secret. Liberal elites actually *don't* believe people have the moral right to live just because they are human.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge

Only from certain age foetus can survive without living mother and only for limited period of time.
Baby can fully survive without its mother with the help of society.
This is pretty serious difference in my opinion.

This difference (viability) you speak of is not a difference between a foetus and a baby, but a difference between unviable and viable foetus.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


It seems to me that some have gone beyond the question as to when life begins and are ready to accept the murder of obviously living babies. What this is coming down to is not when a fetus is considered a person but whether human life has any real value at all.

I wish I could say that I was shocked to hear people proposing this but I am not. Once partial birth abortion was accepted as a option it was only a matter of time before someone would conclude that there was no real difference in killing the baby once it was completely out of the womb.

I have even heard some reason that as long as the umbilical cord is still attached the baby is still considered part of the mothers body and thus she has the right to decide what to do with her own body, even if that means killing the baby.

I am not shocked, but I am disgusted.

Just want to say...."Hey Mom...Thanks for not killing me!"

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


I understand why you say that. However, it is grace that causes growth. Consider cancer as a bastardized version of grace/charity. It grows without bounds. Consider auto-immune diseases as a bastardized version of understanding/order. It strikes down, as the body's police force, without bounds.
Order without Charity is Pride as Charity without Order is Chaos.

So then, as we have risen up from "the void," we are entering into a place where there is more life. On the way, we see living beings whose substance is dead, but are clothed in life. We also see living beings who are clothed in death, but their substance is life. A garden involves both growing and decaying matter, the world is a nursery of spiritual beings.

In grace, let us cause growth, and in order let us cause health. One without the other is decay leading to death.
Don't focus on the enormity of what mankind if failing to do (that will lead to more failing), but focus on growing healthfully, one step at a time.

As long as the baby is inside the mother who cares. It's her body. Murder or not.

The Journal of Medical Ethics is really pushing this agenda lately.

Link to my thread about another article on a paper from the same journal.

In the article the link above is about they are discussing harvesting organs.

After-birth abortion...... (Link to the article this thread is about in the Journal.

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

They are arguing that there is no moral difference between killing an infant or abortion. I agree with that, only on the other side of the coin. Both are murder. These folks take the opposite stance that an infant should be treated the same as a fetus in an abortion and that killing them for even financial reasons is ethical.

They first try to prove that a early term fetus and an infant are the same. Then they go from that to using it to justify Infanticide which they prefer to call "After-Birth Abortion".

Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

So if you decide you cannot afford your child after it is born, they are saying you should be able to kill it.

This is where it has been headed all along. For years they have argued that public acceptance of Infanticide (abortion) would not evolve to exactly what they are arguing here. The next step is to kill babies for even economic reasons, simply because the Mother wants the baby killed. Add that to the idea of killing the elderly and infirm and we in fact get exactly what we knew was coming.

Not sure why the OP article is talking about Oxford as the article it refers to is from Australia. They must have some link to Oxford I guess.

I also noted the article from Canada a while back and if you search you will find similar articles coming out of the UK, with similar arguments.

Considering how often these papers are showing up, this is where medicine is headed. Straight from "Do no harm." to "Kill them if they can't pay".

Can the idea's from the Monster "Hitler" be far behind. Not much of a stretch from killing babies for economic reasons to killing anyone at any age for societal reasons. We labeled Hitler a Monster, but if we accept this, we are the same.

Ask your MD their opinion and look at their eyes when they respond. I plan on doing exactly that next week. I want to know if the person I trust to care for me is a potential Monster or not.

Read through that paper. You will find that it also suggests that they are not talking about right after the infant is born, they mean at anytime after the birth that it is determined the child is either unfit to live or if the parents have economic problems. Mommy will be able to look at her MD and say kill the Baby, I can't afford it.

reply to post by Blaine91555


OK, that is what I thought. This is NOT just random events. This is actually a build up to their Fourth Reicht Fascism.

And this horse isn't getting out the gate.

reply to post by strato


The father might care, the brothers & sisters might care, the grandparents might care.... just to name a few.
Society should care but sadly it is proving that it does not.

reply to post by Unity_99


A weaker Christian would not eat meat offered to an idol as they may be stumbled by their conscience moving them to think that they are living out a decaying expression. However, a stronger Christian may eat meat offered to an idol as they may understand that idols are altogether false and that there is not decay involved with eating that meat. The stronger Christian should not encourage the weaker Christian to go against their conscience, and the weaker Christian should not condemn the stronger Christian for living by their conscience. In this we find diametrically opposed view which both glorify Life as each person is making a gracious judgment in their estimation.

The focus of the topic of this thread should not be about whether or not we agree with another person's judgments (our culture certainly does not often find common ground), but it should be about whether or not people are making gracious judgments in their own estimation. And for those hypocrites who lie to themselves, their conduct is their own condemnation.

reply to post by Dasher


This is about murdering babies. And its not an intellectual game, nor about spiritual grade. Its a very fundamental thing. A society that would permit this is a hellzone, and yes the asteroids will strike then, for the karma is great. And I don't even believe in karma past being a tool to learn from. Even a planet's tilt is consequence.

The simplest way of putting the tests are Snakes and Ladders.

People used to sacrifice their babies to the gods to be blessed with success and prosperity. At least then they waited until the kids were born, now they murder them in the womb, sometimes for very similar reasons.

Well at least they used too..."Hey my grandparents are too expensive for me to take care of and they no longer contribute to society. Can we kill them and call them elderly abortions?" This is not beyond the realm of possibility once human life is deemed no more valuable than that of any other animal.

reply to post by Sparky63


I'm sure they are on the NAZI list too! But NOT ON MY WATCH!

reply to post by Unity_99


You call it murdering babies, and another would call it compassionate relief. Certainly, each situation is different and sometimes this sort of conduct is murder and other times it's compassion. But for you to lay down a measuring stick for all to measured up to, you make yourself an unbending ruler. And rulers are always tested... and the unbending do break (and not in a good sense).

So again, I might take your view with certain applications of the topic of this thread, and I might take the opposite view with other applications. And that is my point; Gracious judgment is not for one to make over all, it is for each to make for themselves. Without judgment, a human is merely an animal. Without grace, a judge is a wicked god.

reply to post by Dasher


OK, Down Syndromes and disabled are also covered by law. And should be.

But this article is about murdering babies, even those without disabilities.

I see this as criminal, ie, promoting murder is a crime, so they should be arrested.

One thing we need to do is question our government about our police force. Ie. why are we being billed for their pay when they don't do the right thing, and make arrests, in famous cases.

That to me would mean a shake down in the law enforcement agencies.

And while I agree with changing alot of our laws regarding many things that actually violate human rights and freedoms, this which is common law, thou shall not kill, is basic.