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.
MSNBC host says newborn infants don't count as 'alive' unless parents decide they do...
page: 1share:
OK, this is "pro-choice" going way too far; this is murder...
So, if my toddler covers the dog with diaper rash ointment, or other such things that children just do... and I decide that my child no longer deserves to live, I should be able to kill the child?
Had this thinking been in place a few years ago, would Susan Smith not have been prosecuted for murder? If anything, she would have only been fined by the EPA for contaminating a wetland...
This was published in a journal of medical ethics?? What ever happened to "do no harm"? This is a complete and wanton disregard for life... Is a license to practice "medicine" now a license to murder as well?
This is just horrendous...
Info-wars
Today Natural News denounces Melissa Harris-Perry, the latest talking head “death worshipper” to publicly imply that she supports the murder of living, breathing newborn children. According to Harris-Perry, life begins when the parents feel like life begins. And together with some twisted new “ethics” arguments from the radical left, this can include months or years after a child is born.
So, if my toddler covers the dog with diaper rash ointment, or other such things that children just do... and I decide that my child no longer deserves to live, I should be able to kill the child?
MSNBC talking head Melissa Harris-Perry insists that life only begins when the parents have a “feeling” that it begins. “When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling — but not science,” Harris-Perry said to nationwide astonishment on her July 21 MSNBC show. And in one stroke, she simultaneously condones the murder of newborn infants (i.e. “post-birth abortion”) while attacking the science of biology which unambiguously states that a living, breathing infant with a heartbeat and brain function is alive, not dead.
Had this thinking been in place a few years ago, would Susan Smith not have been prosecuted for murder? If anything, she would have only been fined by the EPA for contaminating a wetland...
A study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that newborn babies have no “moral right to life,” and are thus not actually “persons.” Alberto Giubilini, from The University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, a post-doctoral fellow at The University of Melbourne’s Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, are heroes of the radical left. They argue that infanticide should be legal but renamed “post-birth abortion.” They insist that newborn babies have no right to life and that parents can simply “decide” to kill their children for all sorts of reasons, including feeling like the child will be too expensive to raise, or suddenly discovering the fact that newborn babies cry a lot. “Rather than being actual persons, newborns were potential persons,” write the study authors. They don’t really count as human beings until the parents decide they do.
This was published in a journal of medical ethics?? What ever happened to "do no harm"? This is a complete and wanton disregard for life... Is a license to practice "medicine" now a license to murder as well?
This is just horrendous...
Info-wars
edit on 1-8-2013 by madmac5150 because: Caffeine induced cranial clarity
reply to post by madmac5150
I'm a firm believer in free speach and for any said individual to believe what they want. (They will anyways right?)
This however is beyond acceptable.
Why stop with infants? That being said, if I deam my partner as "not alive" can I oust that individual? Or is this considered murder?
Far beyond any acceptable response from a MSNBC host. This is disgusting and should be taken off the air, immediately~
I'm a firm believer in free speach and for any said individual to believe what they want. (They will anyways right?)
This however is beyond acceptable.
Why stop with infants? That being said, if I deam my partner as "not alive" can I oust that individual? Or is this considered murder?
Far beyond any acceptable response from a MSNBC host. This is disgusting and should be taken off the air, immediately~
Im sure the NAZI had the same thoughts right before they started there euthanaisa programs.....
History starting to repeat itself it seems.
History starting to repeat itself it seems.
I checked out the "source" (infowars) and seen no actual sourcing of what they were saying. the quote discussing a lump was amost certainly talking
about 1st trimester (again, no source, so must use common sense here).
Then it goes on about how the radical left wants to murder newborns...
Fine..sure..whatever, and the radical right wants to murder anyone not rich...
I will need sources and the sentence before and after...infowars is about as credible as ren and stimpy (no disrespect towards ren and stimpy.)
Then it goes on about how the radical left wants to murder newborns...
Fine..sure..whatever, and the radical right wants to murder anyone not rich...
I will need sources and the sentence before and after...infowars is about as credible as ren and stimpy (no disrespect towards ren and stimpy.)
This is the most enraging and retarded thing ive ever read in my lifetime. A child is alive once its in the womb in my opinion, life is life when
atoms come together to form a living system thats life people! and this nutjob crazy is trying to say that this applies to babies and infants! are you
NUTS! a baby, while it may not be able to process information the way a developed child can, is still alive. Its heart is beating its lungs are
taking in air its central nervous system is sending signals throughout the body, its sub conscious mind is still regulating bodily functions, and most
importantly its brain is still active processing information. Actually id even go as far to say a baby should be considered living more than adults,
A babys brain processes complex information faster and puts together things amazingly. It takes an adult alot of practice to learn another language
babys just listen and learn, their brains peice together words and retain their meaning throughout time until they can speak. A baby is the most
precious thing on this earth and its brain is better than living, its unlimited potential.
reply to post by SaturnFX
Infowars is not the best source ever I agree, and Infowars rhetoric is in full swing in the language of the article. That being said a video of Melissa Harris-Perrys comments is posted in the article.
Here is the article about After birth abortions which is both absurd and disgusting.
Infowars is not the best source ever I agree, and Infowars rhetoric is in full swing in the language of the article. That being said a video of Melissa Harris-Perrys comments is posted in the article.
Here is the article about After birth abortions which is both absurd and disgusting.
I 'have a feeling' that the talking heads at MSNBC aren't 'alive' ...
Does that mean the network can abort them?
Does that mean the network can abort them?
My mother used to say "I brought you into this world, I can take you out as well"... and even as a child I knew that she was kidding. Now if
a parent says that to their child, should that child have a genuine concern for their own well being?
Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by SaturnFX
Infowars is not the best source ever I agree, and Infowars rhetoric is in full swing in the language of the article. That being said a video of Melissa Harris-Perrys comments is posted in the article.
Here is the article about After birth abortions which is both absurd and disgusting.
I looked through the article, I didn't see any linking source (youtube video at least...after all, it is on television).
Seemingly just the word of infowars...whom has a glaring agenda and quite often has been found truth doesn't matter because some people will buy whatever they say for ratings.
As far as the linking article you just posted:
That is so absurd it is clearly a "troll", and meant as a reverse psychology by anti-abortion types to try and equate not a newborn to a fetus, but a fetus to a newborn (through near sarcastic pretend arguments...think, Colbert report)
The only people I know of whom would even remotely seriously suggest a fetus and a newborn are equal are pro-life crowd (in defense of early fetus stage).
Otherwise, such an argument is simply nonsense. Like saying we can murder anyone we feel isn't as conscious as us...who makes that evaluation...does a person taking pain killers have less life and personhood than someone who is clear headed...does caffine up the person's self awareness, therefore life level, etc...absolute nonsense talk.
So yeah. such a study is laughable and obviously just meant to provoke a reaction would be my assessment.
All the stories I hear about couples beating their own child to near death, not feeding them and making them live in sub human conditions - These
parents clearly have decided that their own child doesn't deserve to live, they have chose not to count their own child as a human, is this women
justifying the actions of these people?
I honestly can't believe what I'v just read and I'm more shocked that it came from a woman, if true. And if it isn't true, then the person who fabricated this, is just as bad
I honestly can't believe what I'v just read and I'm more shocked that it came from a woman, if true. And if it isn't true, then the person who fabricated this, is just as bad
edit on 1-8-2013 by n00bUK because: (no reason given)
No, this is not a troll thread... here are a few more sources...
MSNBC host says newborn infants don't count as 'alive' unless parents decide they do.
Yet another...
And another...
And again...
I could go on, but I don't think that I have to...
Breitbart[edit by]edit on 1-8-2013 by madmac5150 because: Added one more...
MSNBC host says newborn infants don't count as 'alive' unless parents decide they do.
Yet another...
And another...
And again...
I could go on, but I don't think that I have to...
Breitbart[edit by]edit on 1-8-2013 by madmac5150 because: Added one more...
i dont think what she said was bad
(just going by the op's quotes, and i'm still not sure what the op's point is).
maybe you could discuss this topic with a newborn infant.
(just going by the op's quotes, and i'm still not sure what the op's point is).
maybe you could discuss this topic with a newborn infant.
reply to post by SaturnFX
Well can you quantify that statement? A troll is clearly someone who does not take their position seriously. However, the authors of this article which is posted in a well known Journal are professors. They are not simply random yahoos posting on the internet trying to start a flame war. If you have evidence to the contrary then I will concede.
There have been people throughout history who have advocated the killing of people they think have little to contribute to society.
The fact that people on the far left who support late term abortions cannot "decide" (as if some greatly complex decesion or conclusion has to be made) when life begins is laughable. Once the brain has developed enough to form a complex system capable of human consciousness it is a human life.
As far as the linking article you just posted:
That is so absurd it is clearly a "troll", and meant as a reverse psychology by anti-abortion types to try and equate not a newborn to a fetus, but a fetus to a newborn (through near sarcastic pretend arguments...think, Colbert report)
Well can you quantify that statement? A troll is clearly someone who does not take their position seriously. However, the authors of this article which is posted in a well known Journal are professors. They are not simply random yahoos posting on the internet trying to start a flame war. If you have evidence to the contrary then I will concede.
There have been people throughout history who have advocated the killing of people they think have little to contribute to society.
The fact that people on the far left who support late term abortions cannot "decide" (as if some greatly complex decesion or conclusion has to be made) when life begins is laughable. Once the brain has developed enough to form a complex system capable of human consciousness it is a human life.
edit on 1-8-2013 by Openeye because: (no reason given)
A study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that newborn babies have no "moral right to life," and are thus not actually "persons." Alberto Giubilini, from The University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, a post-doctoral fellow at The University of Melbourne's Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, are heroes of the radical left. They argue that infanticide should be legal but renamed "post-birth abortion."
Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...
Originally posted by Rikku
i dont think what she said was bad
(just going by the op's quotes, and i'm still not sure what the op's point is).
maybe you could discuss this topic with a newborn infant.
seriously?
This has got to be the dumbest thread I've seen in a while (and I've seen some doozies).
Never does she say that infants don't count as alive after they are born. Never. Never does she advocate after-birth abortions. Never.
She talks about how pregnancies can be very different experiences to different women, according to their individual situations. She talks about how the feelings of the mother can be very different, depending on whether the UNBORN child is wanted or not - if the mother was raped, or if there are birth defects, if her financial situation can't handle another child, etc. She is talking about legal abortion, as it is now - NOT after-birth abortion.
Never does she say that infants don't count as alive after they are born. Never. Never does she advocate after-birth abortions. Never.
She talks about how pregnancies can be very different experiences to different women, according to their individual situations. She talks about how the feelings of the mother can be very different, depending on whether the UNBORN child is wanted or not - if the mother was raped, or if there are birth defects, if her financial situation can't handle another child, etc. She is talking about legal abortion, as it is now - NOT after-birth abortion.
reply to post by Stormdancer777
yes, the quotes are quite jumbled and i think intentionally misleading.
even intended to say what most here think she said, i wouldnt have an issue.
is msnbc a news station? so is there a video so we can judge what she said for ourselves.
doesnt that sound like someone who has an agenda?
yes, the quotes are quite jumbled and i think intentionally misleading.
even intended to say what most here think she said, i wouldnt have an issue.
is msnbc a news station? so is there a video so we can judge what she said for ourselves.
the latest talking head “death worshipper”
doesnt that sound like someone who has an agenda?
edit on 1-8-2013 by Rikku because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by kaylaluv
This has got to be the dumbest thread I've seen in a while (and I've seen some doozies).
Never does she say that infants don't count as alive after they are born. Never. Never does she advocate after-birth abortions. Never.
She talks about how pregnancies can be very different experiences to different women, according to their individual situations. She talks about how the feelings of the mother can be very different, depending on whether the UNBORN child is wanted or not - if the mother was raped, or if there are birth defects, if her financial situation can't handle another child, etc. She is talking about legal abortion, as it is now - NOT after-birth abortion.
Feel free to maintain your naivety... if the MSM wanted to claim to be without bias, where was the shock and outrage over Gosnell? It was barely touched and glossed over, because it portrayed the left's position in a horrifyingly negative light...
Let me know how that needle feels going in when the government suddenly decides that you don't "feel alive" to them...
Originally posted by madmac5150
No, this is not a troll thread... here are a few more sources...
MSNBC host says newborn infants don't count as 'alive' unless parents decide they do.
Yet another...
And another...
And again...
I could go on, but I don't think that I have to...
Breitbart[edit by]edit on 1-8-2013 by madmac5150 because: Added one more...
Actually, your pointing to the same article over and over, just rehashed to a different neocon bs website cut and paste.
Here is the ACTUAL video (ignore the bull and scroll down to the midway mark)
video here
As you might expect, it is extraordinarily taken out of context so much that it is actually reversed as to what they say she said.
It totally says she thinks babys should be murdered....if you screw up reality enough to where up is down and back is forward anyhow. also might help if you hit your head with a hammer until you can smell colors...then sure..totally says that.
Otherwise, she is discussing how the media on kate's pregger state was already a baby that needed a name and such...before conception (that babies life was alive when people simply thought about it..not when an egg was even fertilized).
Her final analysis is that lawmakers are making laws based on feelings of when babies are alive, and not science. I can understand =some= minor confusion about the last sentence (could have been phrased better), but anyone whom heard what was said before and at the end (about the lawmakers) could have easily figured out what was being said.
Disingenious, and yet again, more crazyland bubblemaking by the fringe whom cannot rely on facts, therefore must twist and lie and pretend such things happen when they clearly don't.
I can quote from the bible where jesus can sound like a bloodthirsty jerk...all I gotta do is remove context.
Originally posted by madmac5150
Originally posted by kaylaluv
This has got to be the dumbest thread I've seen in a while (and I've seen some doozies).
Never does she say that infants don't count as alive after they are born. Never. Never does she advocate after-birth abortions. Never.
She talks about how pregnancies can be very different experiences to different women, according to their individual situations. She talks about how the feelings of the mother can be very different, depending on whether the UNBORN child is wanted or not - if the mother was raped, or if there are birth defects, if her financial situation can't handle another child, etc. She is talking about legal abortion, as it is now - NOT after-birth abortion.
Feel free to maintain your naivety... if the MSM wanted to claim to be without bias, where was the shock and outrage over Gosnell? It was barely touched and glossed over, because it portrayed the left's position in a horrifyingly negative light...
Let me know how that needle feels going in when the government suddenly decides that you don't "feel alive" to them...
Just sayin' - The MSNBC host discussed in your OP does NOT say that newborn infants don't count as alive unless parents decide they do. The article is lying, and the title of the OP is a lie.