MSNBC host says newborn infants don't count as 'alive' unless parents decide they do...

Wow - this is so far on the other side of the abortion debate that it's ridiculous?

Kids are only alive then parents say that they are? What is she taking?

Kids are alive at BIRTH, when they are pronounced alive by a doctor ......

Originally posted by babybunnies
Wow - this is so far on the other side of the abortion debate that it's ridiculous?

Kids are only alive then parents say that they are? What is she taking?

Kids are alive at BIRTH, when they are pronounced alive by a doctor ......

The only actual argument was that a baby can arguably be consided alive before even conception (depending on if the parents are trying for it, decorating a room, etc...for them, that baby is already part of the house...how to get it is simply the details).

only the lunatics are suggesting what is put in this thread...
Sadly, there are lunatics that own websites that for some reason are still allowed as sources here.

Watch for falling morals! I was hoping this was sourced from "Before Its News" or Sorcha Faal. No such luck.
(Yes I realize "Info Whores" is not the best of sources either)

Either way, Its getting real folks...

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

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)

The discussion going on in that piece is simply a moral debate. a attempt to link a conundrum. I disagree with the person as their definition of life is an emotional debate verses a scientific understanding.
life is by every account, a series of experiences and memories. once there is brain activity, there is life. No discussions of problems, diseases, or anything else removes that simple hard fact. this happens between 3-5 months.
One can argue why 1 + 1 could be many things...but the simple answer is that in our numerical system, it equals 2...regardless of how you feel about 2, it is simple fact...
feelings, thoughts, experiences, sensations, all controlled by the brain, brain activity means life, life is protected unless It threatens another.

The article no doubt is just an academic attempt to create a conundrum as I said, and only works if you forget the science and run purely on emotion.

reply to post by SaturnFX


All life is precious, and it is my contention that the gravest sin is the murder of the innocent... and what is more innocent than a child? Granted, you can contend that this is just an "academic" exercise, but we are on the edge of a very slippery slope here...

Originally posted by SaturnFX
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.)

I had a thread on this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

And it had links.

cnsnews.com...

No matter what these entities suggest, no one is buying it.

But growing up with high quality news, talk shows, the 5th report, always looking for both sides of the story and questioning everything our leaders said, an era of intelligence in the 60's-80's, cannot even understand how anyone is tolerating this level of B grade crap on the news, like something out of a B grade horror show.

Why don't people start to create their own newspapers and media.

i hope the station never stops getting a strong response over this. But the news needs to go back to indepth coverage and reporting all sides and officially questioning everything again.

infowars is about as credible as ren and stimpy (no disrespect towards ren and stimpy.)

reply to post by SaturnFX


I have of course heard of Info Wars but do not know very much about them...Is Info Wars a republican type of site??? If so then they are probably slinging crap at democrats, out there beating bushes to scare up totally bogus rhetoric...But, If this were true and it became legal, what do the monsters oops I mean parents do after they decide that their baby is not worthy, do they suffocate it at home and bury it in their backyard next to where they bury their dead pets, or do they take the baby back to the hospital or mid wife and say "look we have changed our minds" and the hospital gives it a shot to put it down?


This is so wrong in so many ways...Please excuse my stinkin thinkin in the above...this just pisses me off!!!

I'm concerned this is something TPTB are actually trying to bring in.

nationalreview.com...

In Alberta a young woman is given a light suspended sentence for strangling her new born.

Indeed. As Judge Joanne Veit puts it:

“While many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,” she writes… “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.”

Gotcha. So a superior court judge in a relatively civilized jurisdiction is happy to extend the principles underlying legalized abortion in order to mitigate the killing of a legal person — that’s to say, someone who has managed to make it to the post-fetus stage. How long do those mitigating factors apply? I mean, “onerous demands”-wise, the first month of a newborn’s life is no picnic for the mother. How about six months in? The terrible twos?

The superior court judge was linking the newborn with abortion practices and suggesting that Canadians had equal feelings of grievance for the mother.

While I understand bracelets, counseling, house arrest for several years, because I believe in healing criminals, this is not the explanation one would give however.

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by SaturnFX
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.)

I had a thread on this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

And it had links.

My former nun teacher in catholic school used to say that masturbation was the same as murdering babies considering every sperm was sacred.

Luckily I deal with science and not other peoples random opinion.
life is defined by an active brain. no active brain, no life. quite simple.
Once there is an active brain, its not an abortion, its a killing...before, its removal of growth.

Originally posted by shells4u

infowars is about as credible as ren and stimpy (no disrespect towards ren and stimpy.)

reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I have of course heard of Info Wars but do not know very much about them...Is Info Wars a republican type of site??? If so then they are probably slinging crap at democrats, out there beating bushes to scare up totally bogus rhetoric...But, If this were true and it became legal, what do the monsters oops I mean parents do after they decide that their baby is not worthy, do they suffocate it at home and bury it in their backyard next to where they bury their dead pets, or do they take the baby back to the hospital or mid wife and say "look we have changed our minds" and the hospital gives it a shot to put it down?


This is so wrong in so many ways...Please excuse my stinkin thinkin in the above...this just pisses me off!!!

If it was real? mind cannot bend that far as it would be some absurd sci-fi dystopia...probably feed the babies to some giant demon monster in a hole or something.

If we killed people whom turned 30 years of age (or older), it would probably be in some sacrificial arena, etc...

infowars is...hmm..well, one could suggest they are ultra fringe right wing, but they also occasionally go nuts about GOP stuff (9/11 and such). So, really they are just doom porn and distortion media, meant for you to basically trust nobody but them. But if I had to push them to the corner, it would be on the outskirts of the fringe of the right...a place where even many right wing nutters will look at and cringe a bit at how far right they are in some areas.
But
Should the reps become in power across the board like in 2000-2006, they will adjust a bit in order to keep the fear up.

And yeah, everything said in this thread about the whole infant thing is nonsense and was the opposite point (that for some people, it can be considered a baby even before it is conceived...as in the desire for a baby.

Originally posted by madmac5150
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

All life is precious, and it is my contention that the gravest sin is the murder of the innocent... and what is more innocent than a child? Granted, you can contend that this is just an "academic" exercise, but we are on the edge of a very slippery slope here...

Not really. infanticide has been discussed in many papers, hundreds, for a thousand years now. it is a sort of standard on many ethical debates..never meant to actually suggest it is acceptable mind you, but rather to run a parallel to whatever they are bringing to light. be it in this case, abortion, or mental illness, society contribution, etc...
Slippery slopes only come when rules are enacted...but discussion is always encouraged, even on the absurd. if only to define our humanity.

reply to post by madmac5150


I am prochoice. Hell, I am pro-death I guess, since I am also against gun "control", I'm for capital punishment to be expanded to more crimes, and believe in the right to die with dignity as my choice alone.

That said, MSNBC is a toilet and Harris-Perry is one of it's top floaters.

Playing states advocate life doesnt begin until you start paying taxes.

The more dead would-be dependents there are the better for the state.

The problem is the independents dont approve of the state taking their money and intruding on their lives so they need a certain ratio of dependent to independent to leverage mob-rule into justifying the taking from the independent and the intruding into everyones lives.

I wonder if sitting in a file on someones desk that ratio is contained in a policy paper.

I bet it is.

How big of a mob do you need to take what you want and impose whatever law you want. Cant go too big or there wont be enough to take and the independent will be pushed out of the tolerable oppression zone.

Have to keep it all tolerable. Otherwise the plebes might revolt.

So, yes baby. You arent paying in. We have enough dependents at the moment. You are not a life.

This is a link to the journal article.
Article link

Here is the intro to the article.

J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411-
Law, ethics and medicine Paper After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? Alberto Giubilini1,2, Francesca Minerva3 + Author Affiliations 1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy 2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; [email protected] Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript. Received 25 November 2011 Revised 26 January 2012 Accepted 27 January 2012 Published Online First 23 February 2012 Abstract Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

reply to post by madmac5150


She is your basic Progressive Moron. I expect nothing less from someone like her, and neither should anyone else.

reply to post by madmac5150


I will not accept that mankind is fully awake and ready for true progression into a better world until. They get this mess straightened out. Because lets be honest with ourselves these arguments over abortions, whether or not the baby is alive. Is all a microcosm to the whole picture on human intelligence.

So I read the journal article, and their conclusion itself seems to be correct. If abortion is justified until birth, then there is no reason to stop at birth. However their conclusion also rests on some assumptions. Most of them are reasonable, but this one caught my eye:

Text We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

I dont think this is the view most people hold. Babies are not persons by this definition. And it is a crucial assumption for their argument to work.

This subject is nothing new, eugenics have been practiced in the past and stopped when enough people realized how heartless and ruthless the practice was.

The only reason anyone is shocked by such subjects now is that they have no memory of such things, because it happened in a similar way long before one was born.

The pendulum is swinging in the other direction, the pendulum swings half-arc every 90 years or so, and I know few people who are still alive at 90, hence the lost memories of events in past history.

metanoia-films.org...

Please make some time to watch this documentary if you want to have a better understanding of what's going on around here, you may just realize you already knew a lot of this stuff, they tried to teach this stuff in school till the early to late 70's and then the dumbing down started again, the same way it happened 90-180 years ago.

It just goes round and round like it has been doing for thousands of years, the only thing that changes is technology.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Originally posted by SaturnFX
life is defined by an active brain. no active brain, no life. quite simple.

Oh, really?

In SCIENCE class, I was taught that life is defined by "consisting of cells".

By the way, the first part of the baby to grow is The Heart. A beating heart is the essence of LIFE.