It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Medical Journal Justifies Abortion

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
The forces of abortion rights are on the march against the pre-born again. This time they have created an "ethical" arguement for the murder of the unborn.


The New American


Written by Steven J. DuBord
Wednesday, 30 December 2009 10:00

The American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology (AJOG) published online in September 2009 a pro-abortion article entitled: “An ethically justified practical approach to offering, recommending, performing, and referring for induced abortion and feticide.”

Written by Frank A. Chervenak, M.D., and Laurence B. McCullough, Ph.D., and featured in the December 2009 print edition of the journal, the article basically justifies abortion by purporting that “the fetus lacks the capacity to generate a perspective on its interests” due to “the immaturity of the fetal central nervous system.”

This is important, so the authors say, because if the fetus isn’t aware of his own interests, he has no claim to any rights. “The ethical principle of respect for autonomy and the concept of autonomy-based rights therefore do not apply to the fetus,” the authors declare.

Chervenak and McCullough see this point of view as simplifying the whole abortion debate “because it prevents ethical analysis of induced abortion and feticide in medical ethics from being paralyzed by divisive debates about a fetal right to life that have been going on for decades, indeed centuries, without any basis for resolution.” They state, “The ethical concept of the fetus as a patient does not require appeal to the discourse of fetal rights.”

Thus the article quickly disregards that all-important line from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Note that the Declaration did not say “born equal,” but “created equal.” There can be no dispute that the creation of a unique human life occurs at the moment when an egg is fertilized, not at the moment of birth. Thus human rights begin even in the womb.



LifeSiteNews.com reported on December 22 how Reverend Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D., the director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, responded to the AJOG article. Pacholczyk said, “Chervenak, McCullough, and other academicians of their stripe really ought to learn to pick on those their own size, rather than leveraging their age and educational advantage to mount unjust attacks against those younger and not-yet-educated human beings still in the womb.”

"Human fetuses or newborns do not need to be able to balance a checkbook or have a nervous system before we will 'grant them moral status,' since their moral status and dignity doesn't depend on us granting it in the first place," Pacholczyk stated. "Only the most pride-filled academician could ever suppose that he had the ability to grant moral status to a fellow human being who happens to be very young."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




They pick on those who cannot speak for themselves, stating that the fact that they cannot speak for themselves justifies their actions.

I'm sure I made it clear, I find this article offencive to the very meaning of human life. They are trying to determine which of us are to be deemed worthy of life based upon their elitest definitions.




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
It's because of "medical ethicists" and pro-choicers that things like this happen;

Lifesite News


Virginia Mother Gets Away with Infanticide Due to 'Loophole' in the Law
As long as umbilical cord is attached and placenta is still in the mother, baby can be killed


By Patrick B. Craine

CAMPBELL COUNTY, Virginia, December 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A mother who suffocated her newborn baby earlier this month in Campbell County, Virginia cannot be prosecuted, say investigators, because the umbilical cord was still attached.

"In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it," stated investigator Tracy Emerson. "She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it's still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it's no crime in the state of Virginia."

The baby, who was born full term around 1 a.m. on December 11th, was dead when the police arrived ten hours later. According to the medical examiner, he or she was born healthy. Police say the mother knew she was pregnant and had undergone prenatal care.

While the authorities have seen numerous similar killings, and have sought changes in the law, legislators have not acted thus far because they felt the issue was too close to abortion.

It appears that action will take place this time around, however. State Senator Steve Newman announced last week that they had begun drafting a bill to protect born babies still attached to the mother


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Pro-abortion. I love it.

Yup - we's pro-abortion. We goes around and has abortions every other weekend.
EVERYBODY should have an abortion.

But please don't take my response as an argument. I just do it to amuse myself.
It's not like we'll ever agree.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by leftystrat
Pro-abortion. I love it.

Yup - we's pro-abortion. We goes around and has abortions every other weekend.
EVERYBODY should have an abortion.

But please don't take my response as an argument. I just do it to amuse myself.
It's not like we'll ever agree.




Very grown up my friend
and we wonder why intelligent conversations do not sprout from ethical or moral issues. I am not claiming that I agree with the article and I am not stating that I disagree with the article. But your comment is clearly out of line. Have at least some respect for others opinions and they will respect yours even if they differ in belief. And perhaps trying to understand their argument rather then just saying that you will never agree. That is taking the easy road out rather then talking it through diplomatically and rationally. Anyway...

Well the article makes a point specifically toward pro-life people. By this I mean, we do not know the mothers full mental state (the one who killed her child) and while she did murder the child and yes it is murder since a child is viable when it is delivered from the womb. The problem comes in now who has the power of so called "entrusting". By that I mean a hypothecially type of power of attorney to care for a life at this time. if you go along with hard-core pro-choicers then the baby is born and abortion is still an option. Meaning it is ok to have an abortion after the child is born. However, with MOST standard pro-choicers the line is drawn when the baby is born, meaning you have no right to harm the child since it is viable. The problem now is are the HARDCORE Pro-choicers defeaning out the Standard and more rationale abortionist (and many of you will not like that sentence and I understand that, but we need to look at it from both sides and not just your own). We can see the same thing happening with Healthcare, creationism and other works of today. The Hardcore leaders and silencing the rational thinkers.

Of course there are pros and cons to both sides of this argument. And to me the argument of the article is not very scary at all. I doubt this hold up in any circle of pro-choicers, except the hardcore ones. The rational ones would probably put this to rest rather quickly.




top topics
 
2

log in

join