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.

Freedom of Speech a Fantasy in America

Freedom of Speech a Fantasy in America

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

We have known for some time that the government was listening to our phone calls, landlines and cell phones, and we have suspected they were doing the same thing to our e-mail and to our blogs.  Now we KNOW.

“A privacy advocacy group has swayed Congress to hold a hearing next week into the Department of Homeland Security’s practice of monitoring social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, as well as media reports and organizations, including The Drudge Report.”  (SOURCE)

How much longer will Americans allow our freedom to be eroded … taken away?  How long are we going to allow the desecration of the US Constitution? 

Since September 11^th, 2001 we have been trading our freedom for security.  It never works.  The end result has always been that a people who trade freedom for security eventually wind up with neither. 

“The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) recently obtained close to 300 pages of documents, as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, detailing the federal agency’s “intelligence gathering” practices on the web.

Among the documents were guidelines from DHS instructing outside contractors to monitor the web for media reports and comments that “reflect adversely” on the agency or the federal government.

As Reuters reported last month, in early 2010 contractors were asked to spend 24 hours monitoring news media coverage on popular websites, including Facebook, Twitter, Hulu, WikiLeaks, as well as news sites including the Huffington Post and The Drudge Report.

The documents obtained by EPIC indicate that following the exercise, a procurement official awarded an $11.3 million contract to General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in order to carry out the monitoring on a “24/7/365 basis”.” (SOURCE)      

What has happened to America’s guarantee that its citizens have “freedom of speech?”  Has that guarantee been revoked?  Indeed, it has.

Look.  America has a government run amok.  Like a giant vacuum cleaner, Washington is sucking our freedom up and leaving us vulnerable to a tyrannical central government with a socialist agenda.

The Bill of Rights, the leash our founders placed around the neck of government in America has been slipped and like a ravenous junkyard dog, that government is devouring the liberty and freedom of all Americans. 

The Obama Regime has been the worst violator of the government restraints placed on them by the constitution since the Lincoln Administration.

The corruption within the current government is as bad, or worse, than that of the Grant Administration.  Government -- and the power of government -- has grown exponentially under Obama’s leadership  -- and he is asking for another term to complete the job.

Consider this:  As we observe the degradation of American liberty under the Obama Regime’s first term, what do you think will happen when Obama is not restrained by an impending election?  Can America survive as a free constitutional representative republic with a capitalist society?  In my opinion, the answer is an emphatic, resounding NO!  America cannot survive.  At least a FREE America cannot survive.

America is facing the very real threat of becoming another socialist dung heap where all its citizens suffer “fairly” or, as the socialists and Marxists say, … equally.

Ginger McCall, the Director of EPIC is reported to have said:  “The idea that the government is constantly peering over your shoulder and listening to what you are saying creates a very chilling effect to legitimate dissent.”  (SOURCE)  

I agree with Ms. McCall, except that I would take it a step farther.  Not only does government eavesdropping chill freedom of speech … it THROTTLES it!    

This whole mess is just another indication of how America has slipped into the Post Constitution era.  The “fabled” US Constitution is a thing of the past.  It is a myth born in the dim mists of yesteryear and is no longer applicable today. 

Just as history records that Nero burned Rome, history must record that Obama presided over the destruction of America. 

Look.  A nation like America can only be successful if it has a God-fearing populace, not a people who celebrate infanticide and behavior that God has proclaimed an abomination. America is more like the latter than the former today.  As a result, we have sold ourselves into slavery.

The distant bell we hear is tolling America’s death knell.  The last best hope of mankind is breathing it’s last, felled by it’s own hand.

J. D. Longstreet