A wave of controversy over a couple of Melbourne University so-called “ethicists” whose article in a prominent journal, argued that killing babies should be permissible has brought the issue of infanticide to the forefront. This story comes on the heels of bringing up former Illinois state Senator Barack Obama's key role in support for infanticide and his opposition to criminalizing the murder of newborns who survived failed abortions.
The two authors, Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini are affiliated with universities in both Europe and Australia. The paper they released declares, “Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health,”. The truth is that in most of the world abortion is very restricted. Even in America where it is technically legal, it is passionately opposed and that opposition is growing.
These people are slick too. They are like all liberals and think that if they can define the terms they will win the debate and you know what? They are right. Here's how they are doing it. They are preferring the term “after-birth abortion” to infanticide. Now personally neither of those things sound good to me, but think of how abortion has been used so much instead of what it really is... murder. Doesn't abortion sound less provocative? The abortion issue isn't the only issue where this is raised. It has been raised on the issue of sodomy being called “gay” and adultery being called “an affair” and terms I could cite here to prove the point.
How did these people get so twisted in their thinking that they could provide statement like the following?
“Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life.”
They state this pointing to current abortions and capital punishments where humans do not have a right to life. This is merely a twisting of the facts. Abortion, though many believe is legal, is still the murder of a human being. Capital punishment is just that, punishment, not murder. If someone takes a life maliciously, then that person should be punished by having their own life taken.
Casey Fiano, with the U.S. Based activist group Live Action said, “The fact that they see adoption as something that would cause a mother emotional distress but not the murder of their own child just shows how sick these two people are.”
The team's paper becomes more and more illogical and a distortion of terms to push forward their utterly reprobate thinking. They state:
“Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. 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. “
People who think like this have such a screwed up moral compass it is a wonder they can find their way around their own homes!
Most of us can understand that this is logically where the abortionist mindset goes. In fact, since they make the case for killing a newborn baby, what will stop them from say increasing the time you can kill your baby to say 2 or 3 years old? How about 5? 10? You see, once you enter the area of moral relativism there is no clear line of what is right and wrong. As the Scriptures teach, “Everyone does right in their own eyes(Proverbs 12:15)."
What is so ironic in all of this is the defense of Professor Savulescu, in the British Medical Journal blog, “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.”
He then continued in an interview with The Daily Telegraph stating:
“This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”
Wait! Hold the phone! He says that people who are ticked off the other humans would think utterly insane thoughts such as pushed forward by these two “ethicists” and that some even have vented their anger with threats (something that this writer does not advocate), that they are somehow advocating one should “kill based on their own moral certainty.” Well now Prof Savulescu, aren't you guys arguing for killing based on YOUR moral certainty? Isn't that exactly what you are arguing for? From my vantage point that is exactly what you and these two murder proponents are engaging in.
There was some ray of sanity from one Dr. Trevor Stammers, the director of medical ethics at St Mary's University College. He said, "If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say 'it's doesn't matter, she can get another one,' is that what we want to happen?" Exactly, this is not what we want to have happen and Prof Savulescu that is the kind of society I want to live in.
The twisted depravity of men and women that advocate the killing of those who should be most precious to them is utterly contemptible. If you read this article and think to yourself, "Well it's a mother's right or her decision and it doesn't effect me", you should really ponder that a bit. As I asked, where should the killing stop? At age 3? How about someone determines it to be 20 or 30? Maybe full on euthanasia? Impossible you say? Remember that the Terry Schiavo scenario was first put forth in "ethics" journals.
This kind of news should cause a people to fall to their knees and cry out to God for mercy. As the prophet Daniel prayed in Chapter 9, confessing not only his own sins but the sins of his people and asking God to show mercy for His name's sake, we too, should follow his example.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.