Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

reply to post by Pigraphia


Its too bad they don't seem like comedians, and when they received some real threats and hostility they called those who were very upset fanatics.

I could see a stretch coming to them being on lists for terrorists soon at that, if you think its not ok for your neighbor to murder his infant, you are a terrorist and the police haul you off after tasering you butt side.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

Originally posted by MeesterB
It might be easy to be upset by this "expert" opinion because it could lead to killing babies. I kind of welcome it as a way to decide the abortion issue. People lie to themselves in order to make it seem okay just removing a fetus in the womb. Maybe now abortion will be truly synonymous with baby-killing. No more moral dodging or hypocrisy.

But war is man killing. A man, already born, somebody's son, somebodys husband, somebodys father. Not only are you killing a man, you are absolutely ruining all those lives. Parents, wives, children...

And then we are deliberately killing the "enemy" their children and families.
Then there's collateral damage and innocent people killed by accident.
And friendly fire. All Killing...all preventable. All on purpose.
For what? Did you get anymore freedom?
NO -I think you got some taken away.

SO - No more moral dodging. WAR is murder too.
Let's quit the hypocrisy and stop calling it anything else, pretending these lives don't count.
If we eliminate abortion we will have to eliminate the killing of foreigners too.


People are determined to defend an embryo without a central nervous system.
That is fine. But are people forgetting about a woman's right to her own body?
She is a life (hello!) and her rights should be recognized above and beyond - anything living off her body. You can't legislate a woman to risk her life in childbirth, (a woman bled to death after giving a healthy birth recently) The US is alongside 3rd world countries when it comes to mortality for mothers.

The same folks vehemently against early termination manage to justify WAR as a necessary evil
for our own well being and freedom. A woman's reasons are as dire. I have to say I think sometimes especially in the case of rape, the girl reasons are better.

Both things should be on a path to elimination. WAR and abortions.

That might be easy to do.

THAT we could do RIGHT NOW...!

... if only we'd agree.
BUT SOME PEOPLE REALLY DON'T WANT SOLUTIONS
THEY WANT TO KEEP THE WORLD BROKEN UP INTO 2 PARTS.
ORDER THROUGH CHAOS -AND IT WORKS LIKE A CHARM

If people are fighting each other - we can be handled much easier.

Now about this story:
They are "associates" of the editor. Their names are offered but I think it is totally made up, to generate publicity on this sensitive issue and bring it to a head.

He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

Trying to say that baby killing is part of a liberal society??? Anyone with half a brain can tell this is a planted story by some Rwinger who will do anything, even scrape bottom like this. Some women have grossly deformed "children" and their doctor makes this difficult decision with them. I think this is exploiting their hardship doubly. I don't think the authors are in any way experts or authors but '"friends of the editor" and so they are putting forth an untenable argument and one that fails since BORN has to mean something. Born is the key word.

Still, Nothing wrong with pushing the envelope. I hope I live to see the day
when we have succeeded in making both of them;
WAR and ABORTION - unnecessary.

reply to post by Unity_99


I posted the article to FB and made fun of it because that's what I do I make fun of things.
I'm waiting for the yelling from all my friends saying how dare I make fun of this.

I honestly wanna know what some of my liberal friends think, it should be interesting.
I probably won't hear any yelling till tomorrow though, Disneyland is open 6am to 6am for leap year and over half my friends went.

reply to post by Pigraphia


They used Liberal in a very misconstrued way, this is how they've twisted it the last decade I guess. Paint the right and heartlessness as freedom and coporate abuses as good, and the left as Nazi ism.

I am a socialist and a sovereign, freedom and equality must go hand in hand, father and mother wedded, and true friends.

But I can't vote for anyone in this corrupt world anymore, there is no one that is sane at all in the parties or groups, nor do I want fascism, nor do I want dog eat dog ism. I want abundance and freedom for all. But common law, thou shalt not kill, rape, murder, steal, the basics, and that includes protecting children, even handicapped children, is, well, the basics, the ABC's of life.

Originally posted by newcovenant

SO - No more moral dodging. WAR is murder too.

Let's quit the hypocrisy and stop calling it anything else, pretending these lives don't count.

If we eliminate abortion we will have to eliminate the killing of foreigners too.

While that makes a great billy pulpit or soap box, the comparison between abortion=murder and war=murder really belongs in a philosophy class divorced from real world context.

You could go start a utopia where there are no weapons and no one will fight back no matter what, eventually one person with one baseball bat will take over.

What makes war different from abortion is someone else is shooting at you and will continue to do so whether you return fire or not.
War=Killing not murder.
Do horrors occur in war yeah, and they probably alwasye will.
You will never get everyone to put down their guns, their swords, their brass knuckles etc...
That's why your comparison isn't really valid and belongs more in the realm of the philosophical.
What also won't change is if someone shoots at me I am gonna return fire whether it's a neighbor, a robber, or a foreign combatant, because I value my life.
I won't just sit there and risk my life in the hope that they will stop shooting if I do.
That's another thing that's different from war and abortion, war has multiple sides each trying to insure they stay alive.
In the foxhole neither cares about the reasons they were sent to war they just care about surviving.
Abortion isn't between two opposing sides fighting for their lives, it's one persons decision.
I'm just saying you need a better analogy.

As for abortion, it's not my place to judge or even decide that matter.
I wouldn't want it to be my decision either, it's too serious and too important for me to decide.
I never even wanna be put in the position where I would need to pick a side, it's way above my spiritual/moral pay level to think about which side is right or wrong.

Well no "expert" is going to tell ME how to run MY life.

Funny too how usually people against abortions are also against paying for that unwanted child in form of taxes.
Hypocrites.

Originally posted by Pigraphia
As for abortion, it's not my place to judge or even decide that matter.
I wouldn't want it to be my decision either, it's too serious and too important for me to decide.
I never even wanna be put in the position where I would need to pick a side, it's way above my spiritual/moral pay level to think about which side is right or wrong.

You are 100% right and this is why they call it a choice.
Deciding on others lives is always above everyone's spiritual/moral level, even if I think a lot of abortions shouldn't take place, it simply is not my decision.

Originally posted by JustAnotherSheep
All WE THE PEOPLE need are names of those of that group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University that made those comments. Let us find out who they are, and write their names down. We need to start a list.

I think this is the two:

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

I suppose nobody read the article of which makes great logical reasoning. It makes valid points regarding what it means to be an individual. Unfortunately, anti-abortion bigots will simply hide in the wake of any evidence.

Originally posted by Unity_99
They used Liberal in a very misconstrued way, this is how they've twisted it the last decade I guess. Paint the right and heartlessness as freedom and coporate abuses as good, and the left as Nazi ism.

Technically Nazi(does that have a plural) are actually uber far right.
They are the result of a state fully controlled by the government.

Nazi is far right, true communism which is actually impossible is far left.
I say it's impossible because in true communism there is no government controlling anything everything is just equally distributed.
It's impossible because for things to be distributed evenly you at least need a counsel of town elders and that is a form of government.

You're right though everyone is being painted in broad strokes to keep everyone fighting everyone at all times.

reply to post by Pigraphia

While that makes a great billy pulpit or soap box, the comparison between abortion=murder and war=murder really belongs in a philosophy class divorced from real world context.

I guess it does if you say so.
How convenient for your side to dismiss it!

You could go start a utopia where there are no weapons and no one will fight back no matter what, eventually one person with one baseball bat will take over.

You could start a utopia where women didn't feel the need for abortions.

I don't really see the difference. They are the same. Or at least they are similar except that abortion is terminating an undeveloped fetus without a central nervous system before it becomes a child, within a woman at hers and her doctors request...and war is murder.

Actually this is really alarming:

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.

What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “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.”

Not new? Well, this implies in their elitist circles, these medical academics don't value human life, and think babies are not individual humans yet.

I remember entering the womb, and as that light ray, I felt just like I do in meditation at a higher frequency, was aware of being an individual with a purpose, though not allowed to remember what it is. And as a baby, my earliest memory was under a month, 2-3 weeks of age, ditto. Twas me, I always felt like ME.

Now, the other part is this, the mention of the Journal of Medical Ethics. Who are they kidding that there isn't a problem when so called respected academia actually include articles and suggestions like this in their book of ethics.

The book needs some adjusting and wisdom looks up from the bottom of the well!

reply to post by newcovenant


War is murder to me as well. However, for those whose intent in their hearts is to free the world or protect the vulnerable, I don't cast blame. But that is not how this is done at all, its done by bombing neighborhoods and dismembering children. Civilians are the number one casualty these days.

reply to post by Unity_99


It's been planned a long time. The globalist Marxist tyrannical world government is merely advancing incrimentally their long standing plans . . . eugenics, population reduction the whole satanic schmere:

twoday.net...

129."It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day" Jacques-Yves Cousteau, oceanographer and humanist, The UNESCO Courier, Nov. 1991, page 13

Originally posted by indigo21
I suppose nobody read the article of which makes great logical reasoning. It makes valid points regarding what it means to be an individual. Unfortunately, anti-abortion bigots will simply hide in the wake of any evidence.

Actually the article is propaganda to fuel anti-abortionists. Reverse psychology.

No amount of information from experts could make the choice crowd change much because the questioning stopped before all of those issues. It stopped at : It's not my f***in life

Originally posted by indigo21
I suppose nobody read the article of which makes great logical reasoning. It makes valid points regarding what it means to be an individual. Unfortunately, anti-abortion bigots will simply hide in the wake of any evidence.

I've read the article, and new borns ARE people and even have object permanence, they just can't test them due to their lack of language and main interest in feeding, sleeping and being held, not to mention if they're not completely forgetting from whence they came, they probably want to return home, but not via murder, more of a beam me up scotty!

reply to post by newcovenant


My post was simply trying to point out you need a better comparison.
War and Abortion occur in two different realms.
A fetus, baby whatever you want to call it isn't actually shooting back at you.

In war or any fight for that matter there is a person who has one goal "stay alive" and in order to accomplish that they will try to kill you.

War is a horrible thing, you just can't compare it to abortion.
It doesn't exist in the sterile environment of reason nor can it be rationalized on the individual soldier level.
It's kill or be killed nothing more nothing less.

The case can be made that war as a concept fought from the safety of the planning room could be compared to abortion.
That's the problem though war isn't just fought from the planning room it's fought in the fox holes it is just too complex and multi faceted.
Comparing war and abortion is apples and oranges, both fruit but that is where the similarities end.

I was just saying you need to find a better comparison is all.

Originally posted by Unity_99


This is beyond my belief system to even be subjected to hearing of such an article, and that these "experts" or academia are even given the platform to speak on.

You have to understand that the we are being prepped for a world wide fascist revolution. One thing about fascism is that it is a total economic, political and social system. Meaning they are going to have to burn down the existing Universities. What easier way to get rid of the old then to infect it with a virus that causes rabid diarrhea?

Seriously. They want the current system destroyed. All our quaint notions of rights etc. One way the plan on achieving that is sending psychopaths into key positions in society, to act as a kind of cleaner agent. They attach themselves to what was once respectable institutions, then they defecate over it all, so as to force society to vomit it up; Presto, the fascist get a Tabula Rasa(blank slate) to build their dream society.

Originally posted by User8911

Actually the article is propaganda to fuel anti-abortionists. Reverse psychology.

I got the feeling that it was written just to stir up trouble as well.
Even the quote at the end of the article is meant to stir up trouble changing the phrase to antenatal infanticide instead of abortion.

People see infanticide they might see red.

Is it just me or are the liberals really going into Nazi territory nowdays. Eugenics is fun and progressive right?