Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Hat tip to Iggymom

When is a child a person?  At conception?  Viability?  Birth?  In the last case it is none of the above.  According to Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne if you don't want the child and give birth, you have the right to kill it.

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Alberto Giubilini

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

Francesca Minerva

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:

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.


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: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.

Read the full story here

I suppose this is the next step by the left to "empower" a woman. Why should anyone be "burdened" or "saddled" with a child.  The child has no value.  It cannot ask work, dress itself, feed itself.  It is nothing to these so-called ethicists.  Ethics?  These two don't know the meaning of the word.  They feel as long as the "mother" doesn't want the child, she should have the right to kill it.

The American Declaration of Independence states this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Have we forgotten those words?  Have we forgotten the simplest commandment of G-d:

Deuteronomy Chapter 5


16.  Thou shalt not murder.

Why should a child, born into the world, be MURDERED for the reason that it is inconvenient for the woman.  She should have thought of the consequences of her actions 9 months earlier when she decided to engage in sexual activity.

How a society treats the least and most helpless of its citizens shows how civilized, how mature it is.  This goes against all the rules of society.  But I fear it will be forced on us by those on the left.  First the "mother" choosing to kill her child, then the government forcing women to kill their children.  Especially those children who do not measure up to the government's idea of perfection.

Are greedy oil companies responsible for higher gasoline prices?

Commentary by James H. Shott

When something unpleasant happens, it’s helpful to have a scapegoat, and when there’s an economic crisis during a presidential re-election campaign, assessing blame is campaign strategy. With the recent rise in gasoline prices, the finger-pointers have been giving their digits a vigorous workout telling us who they want you to believe is responsible for the rising gas prices.

Blaming oil companies or speculators or George W. Bush may make people feel better about something they can’t control, and put political points on the board, but those things aren’t the problem. These price increases are a matter of basic economics, magnified by foolish energy policies.

Before the financial crisis hit in 2008, the price of West Texas Intermediate reached its high on July 14 at $145.16, and average gasoline prices reached their high the same day at $4.05 per gallon. The downward economic trend thereafter pushed oil down to $30.28 a barrel and pushed gasoline prices to an average low a week later at $1.59 per gallon.

As world economic growth picked up, so did oil prices, reaching a high of more than $109 a barrel last Friday, and gasoline prices also hit a recent high of over $3.60 a gallon. However, the change in both oil and gasoline prices fairly closely parallel world GDP growth.

Oil is the biggest factor in the cost of gasoline. John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute, explained last week that “when crude is at $100 for a standard 42‐gallon barrel … a refiner pays almost $2.40 for each gallon of that crude to make a gallon of gasoline” that is priced around $3.60 a gallon. “The next biggest component is taxes,” he continued. “They now average almost 49 cents a gallon, including federal, state and local taxes.” Crude oil and taxes comprise $2.89 of the cost per gallon of gasoline, more than 80 percent.

Further, he reports “crude oil prices are up because of supply and demand. World demand for crude is increasing as the economies of the world begin to recover, and the world’s excess oil production capacity is shrinking. Buyers of crude oil also are clearly concerned about the instability of major oil producing nations in North Africa and the Middle East.”

Some criticize oil companies for exporting fuel overseas. However, the weak economy and more efficient vehicles have left the US with a surplus of fuel; hence there is excess product that must be sold somewhere else. Exporting unsold US supplies keeps Americans working, many at good paying US refinery jobs, and also lowers the trade deficit. There are 9.2 million jobs in the oil and natural-gas industry in this country, and it accounts for 8 percent of GDP and is responsible for 78 percent of total domestic energy production. Imagine where those numbers would be if the Obama administration wasn’t committed to killing traditional American energy production.

Some think that “big oil” is greedy. Profits reached a high in 2008 of 10.12 percent, and have been 5.46 percent, 6.56 percent, and 7.31 percent since. If your company is making only six to 10 cents on a dollar of investment, that ain’t greedy, folks.

All of this is academic where President Barack Obama is concerned. Whatever complaint he may voice over gasoline prices is really just “gas,” because high prices are precisely what he wants. As long as traditional energy and traditional motor vehicles are affordable and popular, the green energy-driven nation that Mr. Obama obsesses about will not become reality.

In 2008 Steven Chu, who is now Secretary of Energy, said: “Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in Europe.” Mr. Chu and his boss think that ideally Americans ought to be paying around $10 a gallon for gasoline. And President Obama himself stated that a gradual increase to European levels would be a good thing.

Toward that end, a new Environmental Protection Agency proposal requires the sulfur content in gasoline to drop from 30 parts per million to 10 parts per million, and according to a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson from six US Senators (4 Republicans, 2 Democrats), this mandate will raise gasoline prices by 12 to 25 cents a gallon. The dream of European fuel prices gets a little closer to reality.

Democrat National Committee chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) said recently that “the Republican field … thinks that we just need to remain tethered and dependent on foreign oil because all they would do is more and more drilling.” This Alice-in-Wonderland assessment assumes that drilling for our own oil will keep us dependent on foreign oil. So much for Democrat energy policy.

Oil production has increased of late, “higher than it's been in eight years," the White House boasts. But this occurred in spite of, rather than because of, the Obama energy policy. Remember that Mr. Obama declared most offshore areas off limits, substantially decreased oil and gas leases in the Rockies, and rejected the Keystone XL pipeline. The increase in production comes from wells on private property where Mr. Obama cannot stop it, and that production began under George W. Bush.

Cross-posted from Observations

Know A Tree By It’s Fruit 

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

I am genuinely surprised when people approach me and ask my thoughts on Mitt Romney.  I invariably ask why they want to know and the reply they offer most often is that they really don’t know the man.

That is when I really want to grab them by both shoulders, shake them, and declare:  “PAY ATTENTION!”

The scriptures tell us:  “You shall know a tree by the fruit it bears.” In Matthew 7:16 it is said:  “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?”

In the New Testament book of James, the third chapter and the twelfth verse, we are informed thusly:  “My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.”

In other words a man is what he is – period.  If you want to know WHAT he is, what he believes, then pay attention to what he does. His accomplishments are the “fruits of his labors.”  Those fruits will define him completely.

Remember George W. Bush's “Compassionate Conservatism?”  Well, that was, in fact, code for “moderate.”  G.W. was a moderate AT BEST.

Mitt Romney is a liberal … moderate on some things … but at the core he is a liberal.  It is something the conservative base of the GOP knows instinctually and that is why they are avoiding support of Romney at all costs, even if that cost is the loss of the election to Obama in November.

I am old enough to remember the “Me Too” republicans.  Ever hear of them?  You’d have to harken back to the days of Nelson Rockefeller and the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party in the 1960’s. (There is an excellent article on this HERE.)

Even then, the liberal wing of the GOP was based in America’s northeastern states.  It still is today.

Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts a liberal state if there ever has been one.  There is no way under the sun a conservative can be elected governor of Massachusetts. Yet, Mitt Romney was -- and he would have us believe he is a conservative.  This fact alone should be enough evidence to convinced anyone that Mr. Romney is no conservative. He is a solid member of the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party.  In 1964 we called them the “Me Too” republicans.  Today we call them RINO’s. (Republican In Name Only)

Ever since conservatives began to grow in power within the Republican Party there has been an internal war raging for control of the party.  In 1960, Richard Nixon managed to merge the two factions of the GOP into one concentrated effort.  But -- just four years afterwards Nelson Rockefeller could not.  And he was furious.  He led an unprecedented attack on the GOP conservatives that failed but left massive scars on the GOP base that are still swollen and sensitive today.

Like Rockefeller, Romney is where he is because he was “next in line.”  It is “his turn” in accordance with the way the northeastern liberals ran the party. (They have yet to learn that they no longer control the Republican Party.)  GOP voters were simple told that Romney is the “frontrunner”  … no matter that Romney did not have the strength that comes from the support of the party faithful – including the conservative base of the party today. 

The so-called “republican establishment,” somehow, missed the fact that the power in the GOP switched from the northeastern states to the southern states years ago.  They also seem to have been oblivious of the inherent distrust of northeastern politicians in the south, which is left over from “Reconstruction” of the South immediately following the American Civil War a hundred and fifty years ago.  (Painful memories tend to last much longer than pleasant memories.)

Michael Gerson is an op-ed columnist for The Washington Post, a Policy Fellow with the ONE Campaign, and a former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He served as President George W. Bush’s chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006, as a senior policy advisor from 2000 through June 2006.  Mr. Gerson once described Romney this way:  "Romney's main political vulnerability is a serious one. Running for Massachusetts' governor in 2002, he was a pro-choice, economically centrist, and culturally liberal, business oriented Republican."

You DID see “pro-choice,” “centrist,” and “liberal” in Mr. Gerson’s description of Mitt Romney above, didn’t you?

Yes, as a conservative I want to deprive Obama of a second term as President.  But I do not want to swap one liberal for another.  Besides, we have the likelihood of two vacancies on the US Supreme Court coming up in the next four to five years and it is vital that there be a conservative in the White House to appoint two conservative justices.

Romney cannot pull the two factions of the GOP together.  He may win the nomination but he will not win the election against Obama. The GOP’s “Anybody But Obama” strategy will not work. It is doomed to failure. It is as simple – AND -- as sad as that.  And yes, it IS depressing.

J. D. Longstreet   

A Nation of Bastards 

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

**************

The dictionary defines bastard as:

“bas·tard

/ˈbæstərd/ noun

1.

a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child.   (SOURCE)

In America today “73 percent of black children are born outside marriage, compared with 53 percent of Latinos and 29 percent of whites.” (SOURCE)

What ever happened to shame?  An even better question to ask, perhaps, is what has happened to self-respect?

Today in America  “…. More than half of births for women under 30 occur outside marriage.” (SOURCE)

It would appear, from the current figures, that our friends of the liberal and progressive persuasion have done a heck of a job in their efforts to destroy the American family.  It has worked beyond their wildest expectations.

In the not too distant past having the misfortune to be born a bastard marked you for life.  Your expectations were not good, to say the least.

Mothers of bastard children were marked for life as well.  They were social outcasts.  The fathers were, well, just SOBs lacking in self-control and having no respect for women, children, or the family.  He was not to be trusted, period.

America has truly become a “nation of bastards.”

You may ask why I am so concerned over this jaw-dropping illegitimacy rate.  The answer is simple.  People’s lives are being destroyed and the future of America is being destroyed right along with them.

THIS is what happens when the American family is destroyed.  Understand, two mommies, or two daddies -- with children -- is NOT a family.  A single parent with children is only half a family, at best. A family MUST be a father, mother, and the children.

Msgr. Charles Pope, of the Archdiocese of Washington, has said: “The breakdown of the traditional family is at the heart of what Daniel Patrick Moynihan once called a “tangle of pathologies.” The image I have often used is that the breakdown of the nuclear family is in fact a kind of nuclear fission. For the family (not the individual) is the basic unit of society. Splitting the family is like splitting the atom, it leads to a destructive chain reaction that, if not somehow controlled and contained, destroys just about everything in sight.

So many of our national ills are show(ing) a strong connection to the breakdown of the family: poverty (the highest correlation to poverty is single motherhood), juvenile crime, teenage suicide, promiscuity, teenage pregnancy, lower SAT and other academic scores, higher dropout rates, authority and trust issues, abortion (85% of abortions are performed on single women), a demonstrated lower capacity to make and keep commitments, delayed maturity, and a whole array of other things in a “tangle of pathologies.”

Clearly God, and nature provide that a child should have the influence of both a father and a mother, both a male and a female influence. It makes sense that proper human formation would require both male and female influence, which is both complimentary and diverse. There are important things that a child can learn from his father than he cannot learn from his mother and vice versa.” (SOURCE)

If you were taken aback when you read the title of this piece, then your shock is a clear indication of just how efficient the political correctness movement has been in America concerning issues such as illegitimacy. 

 

Black American leaders have failed, in my opinion.  It seems to be evident they had rather rail against racism, slavery, and poverty than attack, head-on, the breath taking issue of black bastard childbirths.  Even, it would seem, when 73% of the children of America’s black community are born out of wedlock, it is still much easier to take the path of least resistance and preach “victimhood” to America’s black community than it is to preach “responsibility” for one’s self and one’s circumstances.

As MSGR. Charles Pope says:  “Hard though it is, accepting personal responsibility is essential to human dignity.” (SOURCE)

To learn why America is crumbling, it is necessary to inspect the foundation – the family. 

When the foundation of any edifice begins to crumble it is only a matter of time before the entire structure collapses.

J. D. Longstreet   

America Blood Spilled And Obama Apologizes!

America Blood Spilled And Obama Apologizes!

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

I don’t get it.  How the heck does a nation win a war when it continues to apologize to the enemy?

War fighting just ain’t what it used to be … I mean, back when we actually won wars.  Remember, we haven’t WON a war since the Second World War.  

In the first Iraq war we simply declared victory and went home.  That didn’t work, because we had to go back to try to finish the job, and we STILL haven’t won… but the troops are, again, back home.

What the heck is going on, anyway?

It’s called “political correctness” run amuck.

The funny thing is … our military has the testosterone necessary to fight and win wars.  We have the best trained and experienced military on the globe.  But we have spineless leaders.  Unfortunately, we have a civilian Commander-in-Chief of the military … A POLITICIAN.

Ye gads!  Whatever possessed our forefathers to write that into the constitution?  Of COURSE, I know why they did it.  It was to insure there would be no military control of the US government.

But I think there was something else, too.  I think our forefathers were such men of courage and bravery they simply could not fathom this nation EVER electing a leader with the courage of a doe (a female rabbit). 

But we have.

As to the riots in Afghanistan … the US military had every right to burn those religious books because they had terrorist communications written in them.  That is EXACTLY the sort of thing you destroy -- especially when you are at war. 

I mean, think about it.  Did the US apologize for winning the battle of Midway?  Did we apologize for assassinating the Japanese admiral who led the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Come to think of it, we killed hundreds of French civilians when we attacked Normandy.  Did we apologize for that?

Where is the apology from the current reigning warlord of Afghanistan for his mob’s killing of the two American soldiers? 

Geez!  This “pretty please” war fighting, led by Obama, makes me want to vomit!

Answer this:  When are the Islamofacists going to apologize for MURDERING American civilians around the world, huh?   Think about it, dear reader.  The very reason US troops are in Afghanistan in the first place is because Afghanistan hosted the training camps for the terrorists that MURDERED 3,000 Americans in New York City on September 11, 2001.

Look. Islam touts itself as the religion of peace.  That is pure unadulterated horse
hockey! It is a religion not to be respected but to be FEARED.  It is the only religion
I know of that has a stated goal of conquering the entire world and placing all the
peoples of the earth under Islamic law … or murdering them!

 
The thought that the US is going to have to suffer five more years under Obama’s gutless
leadership is abhorrent, in the extreme.
 

I really fear for the American men and women serving in today’s US military.  I mean …
what’s the point in going to war if you are not going to actually fight a war -- and
fight it to win?   Why go through all the training and put your life on the line if some
lily-livered politician back in Washington is going to sacrifice your life’s blood on the
alter of political expediency?

Come on, folks  Obama is actively seeking ways to gut our military.  He is actively
attempting to do away with nearly 80% of our nuclear arsenal.  This is the very arsenal we
will need to back up our weak military -- if Obama has his way and hollows them out.
 

I have advocated, for a very long time, for an amendment to the constitution that would
require that a candidate for the office of President of the United States be a veteran of
the US military.  I believe it now more than ever before.  We have the evidence, right
before our eyes, of the dangers of a President who cannot relate to the military and has
no clue how to fight a war - and win.
Yes, I am disgusted with Obama’s behavior in this most recent example of his penchant for
politics over national security.
 

If Obama owes an apology to anyone, at all, he owes one to the families of the two young
Americans who were killed in the rioting in Afghanistan.  _He should apologize to them for
apologizing to the Afghans… period!
 

What a world we live in.  What a country we live in today.  It is barely recognizable
as the country in which I grew up.  It is so bad, I actually fear for the future of my
grandchildren.
 

If America has any chance at all of regaining its stature, heck, of regaining it’s self
respect, then we MUST replace Obama in November.  For the sake of America’s sons and
daughters in uniform – toss Obama out on his ear in November.
 

J. D. Longstreet

Don't Attack Iran! I'll Lose The Election!

Is the cry coming from the Obama Regime Administration.  If Israel attacks Iran before October the US economy will collapse and Obama will lose the election in November.

A military strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities has emerged as one of the biggest threats to the U.S. economic recovery and could roil the November elections.

The Obama administration and economic experts have warned a pre-emptive attack by Israel could send the economy into a slump, which would change the trajectory of campaigns for the White House and Congress.

Economic and energy experts say an attack could cause an oil shock, which sent the United States into recession in the late 1970s. In the early '90s, a similar shock occurred when the OPEC oil embargo and the Iraq invasion of Kuwait sent prices soaring.

“If Iran is to retaliate against Israel or other U.S. targets, it’s really unpredictable. It’s safe to say there would be a big shock to oil prices,” said Adam Hersh, an economist at the Center for American Progress.

“The oil price shock and domestic politics in the United States are my biggest concerns for disrupting the economic recovery we’ve been seeing,” he said.

Tensions with Iran will serve as a backdrop for the emerging battle over energy policy between the White House and congressional Republicans, who are seizing on high gas prices to build political momentum.

Read it all here.

If there ever was a rational for Binaymin Netanyahu to go it alone, this is it.  No longer would President Obama have to deal with Netanyahu.  In fact President Obama would have more time for golf.  A lot more time.

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Is He Alive?

Reports out of Iran is that an Order of Execution may have been written and signed for Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani.  Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani was arrested for being a Christian Minister and has been living in prison under an execution threat since 2009.  The father of 2 sons, Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani has been tortured to renounce Christianity and embrace Islam.  Yet he has refused.  He has gathered strength in his faith while living in close supervision and in isolation from all others but his tormenters.

We are hearing reports from our contacts in Iran that the execution orders for Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani may have been issued.

Pastor Youcef’s situation – an innocent man convicted and sentenced to death for becoming a Christian – has not been this dire since we first brought his case to your attention last year.

It is unclear whether Pastor Youcef would have a right of appeal from the execution order. We know that the head of Iran’s Judiciary, Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani, must approve publicly held executions, but only a small percentage of executions are held public—most executions in Iran are conducted in secret.

There has also been a disturbing increase in the number of executions conducted by the Iranian regime in the last month.

Iran is actively violating its human rights obligations by sentencing and detaining Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani. We call on the Iranian government to release Pastor Youcef immediately.

We are continuing to work to help spare the life of Pastor Youcef, and will provide additional updates on his situation as we are able.

Please continue to pray, share his story, and call for his release.

Source

Will you lend your voice to many others and sign this petition to free Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani.  He is living in the Lion's Den and like Daniel of old he has the same protector.  But for how long?


UPDATE:  It is official.  A warrant of execution has been issued for Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani.  It is not known on whether or not the execution of Pastor Nadarkhani has taken place.
By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle