"After Birth Abortion?" (Infanticide).

[mortensen]

"If a single living cell was found on a distant planet, scientists would proclaim we have found life eleswhere in the universe. So why is a single living cell found in the womb of a pregant women not considered life?"

"Ethics, too are nothing but reverence for life. This is what gives me the fundamental principal of morality, namely, that good consists in maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting life are evil."

-Albert Schweitzer-

02-Mar-12

ESSAY: "Potential Persons" and After-Birth Abortion."

The latest abomination to come down the medical-ethics pike is the February 23, 2012, publication of "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? In the Journal of Medical Ethics. This article is written by two ethicists, Alberto Guibilini and Francesca Minerva, both of whom are now working in Melbourne, Australia - he, at Monash University, and she, at the University of Melbourne. Both have ties to Oxford University in Great Britian.

THE ABSTRACT OF THEIR ARTICLE RUNS AS FOLLOWS:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not

have anything to do with the fetus' healthy. 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 irrevant and (3) call "after-birth abortion" (killing a nerwborn) should be permissible in all

the cases where abortion is, including cases where the

newborn is not disabled.

Yes, they actually wrote that in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal. These two ethicists - who do not deserve the title - advocate infanticide on the same level that abortion is "largely accepted," They generally conclude that the same arguments that can be marshaled in support of killing a fetus in the womb can be applied just as well to killing a child who has recently left the womb. Without apology, they argue that since, in their way of thinking, fetuses and newborns are only "potential people" and not actual ones, "the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being" override any rights the fetuses and newborns allegedly have.

They go on to say that adoption is not a valid alternative to infanticide because "the interests of the actual people involved matter." Thus, for example, since the birthmother may suffer "serious psychological problems due to the inability to elaborate (her) loss and to cope with (her) grief" in all? To them, it does because they do not believe that the newborn is a person capable of having interests. In their minds, the newborn is a sub-human, to borrow a term from eugenics, for calling them "potential persons," they are assigning them not-quite human status.

As Jesus Christ admonishes us in Matthew 7:24-27 - His parable of building on the rock - our beliefs must be solidly built on a true and immovable foundation. The thinking of Guibilini and Minerva is akin to the "foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain came, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall" )Matthew 7:26-27). In this case, the house is liberal Western society, and under beliefs like "after-birth abortion," it will come crashing down in utter ruin.

A reading of the article brings out that the authors ignore the foundational question of the sanctity of life. They make no argument regarding the salient question, "When does life begin?" It is apparent that they have already resolved and accepted the position that embryos, fetuses, and newborns do not have a right to continue life unless "actual persons" grant it to them. "God is in none of (their) thoughts" (Psalm 10:4). Having rejected god's very existence, and thus His revealed instructions for abundant living, they have set themselves - human beings - up as the highest authority, arbiters of life and death. With such power, they can decide by their own values and reasoning processes how and when any biological entity becomes a person deserving of a future exixtence.

WHAT A BRAVE NEW WORLD MEN AND WOMEN HAVE CREATED FOR THEMSELVES IN THEIR DESIRE TO LIVE WITHOUT GOD!

The sixth commandment, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13), covers this transgression quite adequately once we accept that the newborn child is certainly a living human being - and has been for many months. While the Bible contains no direct statement that life begins at conception, many passages show that God is involved in peoples lives before they are born (see Psalm 139:13-16; 51:5; Isaiah 49:5; Jeremiah 1:4-5) and that the fetus is aware and responsive to God (Luke 1:41,44). God even commands life for life if a fetus is miscarried (Exodus 21:22-24). The weight of biblical evidence falls on the side of life and full hummanity for fetuses and newborns.

Actually, this brave new world of abortion and infanticide on demand is simply the modern equivalent of ancient pagan practices like the abhorrent idolatry of the Canaanites in the Old Testament times. Pagans would sacrifice their children to their gods to "ensure" that the living would have better lives. They would make a child "pass through the fire to Molech" (an act obviously forbidden by God; Leviticus 18:21) to supplicate the god to give them fertile fields, victory in battle, or some other blessing. Ironically, these ancient people held the life of a child as more dear than today's uber-selfish individuals do, as the latter most often abort babies merely for their own convenience.

There is nothing ethical about "potential persons" and "after-birth abortion." They are the products of the twisted thinking of human beings turned in to the broadcasts of a hateful Satan the Devil (Ephesians 2:2-3). He wants to destroy human life. Hundreds of millions of abortions are not enough to sate his appetite, so he has deceived people into taking the next step toward annihilation, infanticide. Could there be a better reason to increase our prayers to God to send His Son soon?

By John T. Ritenbaugh

The Berean

"Potential Persons" and "After-birth Abortion"

[Ravin R10 man]

Yes, we have murdered millions in the name of "Pro Choice" which is no choice for the infant. Look how many taxpayers we could have had, instead, we have fatherless chidren getting government handouts and nobody wanting to work....and how many of these little ones would have been the one who found a cure for Aids or cancer or whatever..

[stevebeilgard]

as a state senator, obama voted 101 times. 98 times he said "present", offering no opinion or help on the issue. 3 times he voted yes. one of those times, he was the ONLY yes vote. it had to do with botched full term abortion, and he voted that the doctor should be allowed to kill a breathing baby if the intent was to kill it but the operation was botched. this is an innocent, live american and he voted to kill it.

this is our president who says he's a christian. yea, right.