Care for a little insider look under the surface of the pro-abortion movement? Care for a look at the terrifying movement that the news and information, and opinion (and vote) shaping media are a part of, a media culture which constantly promotes it in the best light possible, as a "right", while attacking the life loving movement as brutal and unfair, uncaring about (what?), insensitive to "choices"? WM
After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live? Liberals reason that abortion rights should apply even after a person is delivered. Journal of Medical Ethics article here
This is an old argument from the left, which is gaining momentum among liberal 'intellectuals', "Ultimately, can choice be meaningful if it is limited"? “There is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms it from a fetus into a person.”
Any burden on the woman outweighs the value of the child. Giubilini and Minerva note that philosophers such as Peter Singer have presented arguments for neonaticide for many years. Until now, these arguments have focused on what’s best for the baby—in the words of recent Dutch guidelines, “infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering.” Giubilini and Minerva merely push this idea one step further, calling their proposal “‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice.”
Many say that President was passive and almost invisible during his partial term as a Senator, but not entirely. On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only senator to speak in opposition to a bill that would have banned the practice of leaving premature abortion survivors to die. The bill, SB 1095, was carefully limited, its language unambiguous. It applied only to premature babies, already born alive. It stated simply that under Illinois law, “the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child,’ and ‘individual’ include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”
The pro-choice movement wants the "choice" to abort her, even after she has already lived among us, outside of her mother?
After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live? Liberals reason that abortion rights should apply even after a person is delivered. Journal of Medical Ethics article here
This is an old argument from the left, which is gaining momentum among liberal 'intellectuals', "Ultimately, can choice be meaningful if it is limited"? “There is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms it from a fetus into a person.”
Any burden on the woman outweighs the value of the child. Giubilini and Minerva note that philosophers such as Peter Singer have presented arguments for neonaticide for many years. Until now, these arguments have focused on what’s best for the baby—in the words of recent Dutch guidelines, “infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering.” Giubilini and Minerva merely push this idea one step further, calling their proposal “‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice.”
Many say that President was passive and almost invisible during his partial term as a Senator, but not entirely. On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only senator to speak in opposition to a bill that would have banned the practice of leaving premature abortion survivors to die. The bill, SB 1095, was carefully limited, its language unambiguous. It applied only to premature babies, already born alive. It stated simply that under Illinois law, “the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child,’ and ‘individual’ include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”
No comments:
Post a Comment