Continuing our head-long slide down the slippery slope of abortion

When people challenge and attempt to liberalize valued traditions, there is usually great concern that doing so is the first step down the "slippery slope," which ultimately leads to bad results. The “slippery slope” is considered a logical fallacy, but in the case of abortion, evidence supports that it is an apt argument.  

We started down this slope when abortion was legalized 40 years ago. If it was not the original intention, abortion certainly has become a thinly disguised mechanism for after-the-fact birth control. Pregnancy is not a mystery; we know what causes it. There are numerous ways to prevent pregnancy whenever people decide to forego the one certain way to prevent pregnancy: abstinence.

Birth control devices, while not perfect, are very dependable when used properly. However, somewhere along the way it was recognized that there were a lot of people facing the eventual birth of an unwanted child, and some thought that society was obligated to find a way to relieve these folks of having to bear responsibility for their actions. Abortion became the solution for unwanted pregnancy, under the curious label, "a woman's right to choose."

Each now-pregnant woman and her male partner had the right to choose to abstain from sexual intercourse and chose not to. They had the right to choose to use birth control, and either chose not to, or chose not to use it consistently or correctly, or it just didn't work one time. In the great majority of cases, birth control measures do work when used properly, and that means that in the majority of cases the right to use birth control actually was not chosen.

The "right to choose" is little more than a mechanism for prospective parents to avoid creating a child at an inconvenient time: In 2004 fully 74 percent of women getting an abortion said a child would "dramatically change their life."

Since Roe v Wade imposed legalized abortion on the nation in 1973, 55 million abortions have been performed, and approximately 1.2 million future Americans were aborted in each of the last several years. Nearly half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and nearly half of those are aborted.

Planned Parenthood is the nation's most prolific provider of abortions, performing about 1-in-4 total U.S. abortions each year, chalking up 334,000 in 2011. It received $542 million from taxpayers that year, about 40 percent of its total revenues.

And since 1973 we have witnessed the slide down that slippery slope. It has been considered acceptable by a significant number of Americans to end a pregnancy anywhere from the morning after to the day when the baby should be born healthy and ready for life.

We have been treated to horrors such as partial birth abortion where the baby is allowed to be born, but not completely, with part of the child still in the birth canal so that a butcher with MD or DO after their name can kill the child before it is "born." This nefarious procedure takes hair-splitting to a new level.

A year ago a giant slide down the slippery slope occurred when two Australian ethicists – Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne, and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne – provided an answer to the question, "When does a fetus become a person?" Their answer: it doesn’t matter. They argued in the online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so, too, should be the “termination” of a newborn.

This cold-blooded idea has now infected the United States. That same concept appeared in testimony at a Florida legislative committee that was considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion and is moving on the table and struggling for life. A Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates lobbyist endorsed the right to "post-birth abortion." The lobbyist, Alisa LaPolt Snow, stunned legislators when she said that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion "should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician."

This is nothing more than pre-meditated murder, and is not so different from first responders executing a seriously injured accident victim. And just how far does this "right" to post-birth abortion extend? The first birthday? The difficult years of adolescence? Or perhaps it will extend many years after the botched abortion when under as-yet-unknown elements of the Affordable Care Act bureaucrats may be in the position to determine that it will cost too much to keep an elderly patient alive.

Fortunately, the tide appears to be turning against the grizzly practice of abortion. Last June a Gallop poll showed that 50 percent identified themselves as "pro-life" compared to 41 percent who said they were "pro-choice." And, 51 percent said abortion is morally wrong, compared to 38 percent who said it is morally acceptable. And some state legislatures have passed tighter restrictions on the procedure.

This attitude favoring preserving life and restoring personal responsibility is one small ray of light in America's otherwise darkening culture.

We Believe It Is Okay To Murder The Child If The Parent Doesn't Want It!

By Findalis
Monkey in the Middle

Is basically the statement given by Planned Parenthood's lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow when asked if a child is born alive during a botched abortion what should be done with it.  This goes along with the teachings of Planned Parenthood and the writings of Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourn.  Professors (and I use the word loosely) Giubilni and Minerva believe that a parent has the right to murder her child until the child reaches the age of 2.  They claim the child is NOT a human and there is no soul.  Now it seems that Planned Parenthood is spouting this idea.

A representative from Planned Parenthood is raising some eyebrows for her response to questioning on Florida legislation that would require baby's born alive during a botched abortion to receive medical care.

Alisa LaPolt Snow, a lobbyist with the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified this week at a committee hearing on the bill, sparking expressions of disbelief when she underscored that such matters be left to the woman, her family and her physician.

"Planned Parenthood condemns any physician who does not follow the law or endangers a woman's or a child's health, but we don't believe that politicians should be the ones who decide what constitutes the best, medically appropriate treatment in any given situation," she said in a prepared statement.

One of the lawmakers asked her what Planned Parenthood's position would be if a baby is born as a result of a botched abortion.

"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician," she said.

When another lawmaker asks her specifically what Planned Parenthood does when such a scenario happens at its clinics, she said simply, "I do not have that information."

Another lawmaker made the point that the baby born alive would become a patient as well, not just the mother.

"That's a very good question," Snow said. "I really don't know how to answer that."

She had said earlier that Planned Parenthood's primary objection to the legislation is that it doesn't include a "neutrality clause" that would make clear it does not change the legal status of a baby before being born alive.

Source

Has anyone else noticed that this debate is going from aborting children before birth to now murdering children after they are born?  And at what age do we consider the child "Human"?At what age does their murder become a crime?    2? 12?  21?  50? A week ago a pair of teens shot a 13 month old little boy in the head, killing him.  Today they are charged with murder.  If Alisa LaPolt Snow and Planned Parenthood have their way, they would be given medals and a monetary reward.

I fear this is the next "right" that the Sandra Flukes and Planned Parenthood cronies will impose upon us.  And I can just hear Satan laughing his head off.

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.