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.

An update from somewhere near the bottom of the slippery slope

Commentary by James H. Shott

We not infrequently hear an admonition against taking a particular action because doing so is the first step down a slippery slope that leads to disaster, or at least to some negative situation.

Over the last several decades we have seen a steady decline in what once was called “morality,” a concept increasingly regarded as something from the Stone Age; senseless restrictions hampering the good times of no rules and no responsibilities.

Perhaps it is a natural human reaction to want total freedom to do as one pleases, but wisdom and past experience show us that a society cannot succeed without some rules. However, social rules do not carry fines or jail time; breaking the rules brought only shame and having people whisper as you walked by. And as more and more people chose to ignore certain rules, the whispering faded out and the rules and the stigma attached to them gradually disappeared.

Without significant social penalties, the predictable results of casual and often careless sex increased, the most serious being unwanted pregnancy. Back in the day, when a female got pregnant, usually she had the baby and became a mother, and the male involved became a father. But that was inconvenient for one or both parents, so along with the loosening of sexual customs came a relaxed sense of responsibility for one’s actions, and unwed mothers and absentee fathers grew in number, along with children put up for adoption.

But having a baby you didn’t want was inconvenient for the mother, so abortion that was once used only when medical conditions warranted, such as when the health of the mother was at risk, became after-the-fact birth control.

Abortion advocates argue that a fetus, at least in the early stages, is not a human being, only a mass of cells. Therefore, relieving the woman of this tumor-like inhabitant is not killing a child, because it is a “nonviable tissue mass,” not a child.  The determination that a fetus is not a child is based upon the unresolved question of just when the fetus becomes a person: at conception, at viability (however that is defined) or at birth.

Now, 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 – have provided an answer to the question: it doesn’t matter. They argue in the latest 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 is what can happen when you climb onto that “slippery slope.”

And what is the philosophical, ethical justification for what once was considered cold-blooded murder? “[If] circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

In the abstract to the article Giubilini and Minerva explain that “abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. 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 irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” The authors say that adoption is not a viable alternative “because the mother might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption,” but not from killing it, apparently.

In the enlightened 21^st century, merely being human does not mean that humans have an actual right to life.

Our two ethicists conclude their article: “If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.” Being a newborn, you see, is just another stage along the way to becoming an “actual” person.

In their intellectual wanderings through the amoral desert, the authors discovered that there are “actual people” and persons who are not “actual people,” but merely “potential persons.”

Only a few decades ago this discussion would never have gotten out of the padded room in which it was hatched; today it is considered reasonable, perhaps even enlightened.

However, when a newborn is expendable on the whim of its mother, for any reason or no reason, and is considered less important than some endangered critter like the Clanwilliam Redfin, the Zerene Fritillary, or the Coffin Cave Mold Beetle, how long will it be before “no longer viable persons” with some disease, a mental or physical disability, or who are merely too old to take care of themselves, will also be disposable?

Cross-posted from Observations

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.

Media Palin Assault Strategy Inadvertently Revealed

Before political correctness emerged as the dominant MSM ethic, it was called “Chinese Water Torture.” Water is slowly dripped onto a person's forehead until the person is driven insane, or in the case of McCain/Palin, until Palin is driven off the ticket.

Craig Gordon of Newsday let it slip:

The real danger for Palin would come if this revelation were the first of a steady drip of stories . . .

Here’s what Peter Wallsten of the LA Times wrote:

One Republican strategist with close ties to the campaign described the candidate's closest supporters as "keeping their fingers crossed" in hopes that additional information does not force McCain to revisit the decision. . .

The story about Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy is clearly too dangerous for the Obama folks (including the MSM media) to dwell upon in the long term. Expect media focus to intensify on Alaska’s state ethics investigation of Palin in the the so-called "Troopergate” or “ Wootengate” controversy involving the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. Monegan claims that he was fired because he was reluctant to fire an Alaska state trooper, Mike Wooten, Palin's former brother-in-law, who has been involved in a bitter custody fight with her younger sister. Palin’s staff had contacted Walt Monegan about two dozen times about Wooten.

Here’s an excerpt of a piece of “News Analysis” by Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer:

. . .The youthful mother of five whose placement on the ticket was meant to reinforce traditional values has now revealed that her unmarried teenage daughter is pregnant -- a piece of information that the family and the campaign said they had hoped to keep private. . . .

The woman introduced to America as a reform-minded Washington outsider who opposed the infamous "bridge to nowhere" -- the symbol of McCain's hatred of wasteful spending -- originally supported its construction. The governor who in her introductory speech decried the practice of budgetary "earmarks" sought, as the state's chief executive and as mayor of Wasilla, hundreds of millions of dollars in such federal funding for local projects.

Moreover, Palin has now retained a lawyer to represent her in a controversy the McCain campaign said it had fully researched -- Palin's role in dismissing a state police official who had refused to fire a trooper who divorced Palin's sister.

On Monday, the McCain campaign dispatched lawyers to Alaska in a move described as an attempt to manage a growing crowd of journalists who have traveled there to inspect Palin's background. But the move raises the impression that the McCain campaign didn't know everything about his No. 2 and is now racing to learn what it can while trying to avoid tough questions about the Arizona senator's decision-making process. . . .

One Republican strategist with close ties to the campaign described the candidate's closest supporters as "keeping their fingers crossed" in hopes that additional information does not force McCain to revisit the decision. According to this Republican, who would discuss internal campaign strategizing only on condition of anonymity, the McCain team used little more than a Google Internet search as part of a rushed effort to review Palin's potential pitfalls. Just over a week ago, Palin was not on McCain's short list of potential running mates, the Republican said. . . .

Critics continue to question why McCain, after months of assailing Democratic nominee Barack Obama as lacking foreign policy experience, would tap a running mate who has been governor for less than two years and before that was mayor of Wasilla, population 7,000.

The campaign has little room for error. A new CBS News poll found that 66% of registered voters were undecided about Palin. . . .

Here’s an excerpt from Newsday by Craig Gordon:

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Sarah Palin was on a roll, fresh-faced and fiery, just the boost of energy John McCain's slow-but-steady campaign needed.
Now that's over.

So far anyway, it doesn't look as if news that Palin has a pregnant teenage daughter is enough to knock her off McCain's ticket. . . .

Many experts said Palin could weather the story about her daughter because most voters are willing to accept that it's a private, family matter. "She going to get three strikes, and this is one," said independent analyst Charles Cook.
The real danger for Palin would come if this revelation were the first of a steady drip of stories - and already, news came out yesterday of her husband's long-ago drunken-driving charge and the fact that she hired a lawyer to defend herself in an ethics probe in Alaska. . . .

It also dramatically raises the stakes for Palin's acceptance speech to the nation, originally scheduled for tomorrow night. No longer is that speech merely a high-energy, get-to-know-you address, like her appearance Friday as McCain's running mate. Now it becomes a closely watched moment where the country will try to take her measure - as a possible president, and perhaps, rightly or wrongly, as a mother. . . .

And just as the Palin pick all but dared Democrats to challenge her credentials as a two-year Alaska governor, some Republican strategists yesterday said Democrats will pay the price if their activist supporters point out that the "family values" party has a teen pregnancy in the family.
Obama saw the dangers of that yesterday, issuing a statement where he said Palin's daughter was off-limits in the campaign - and noted he was born to an 18-year-old mother, just a year older than Bristol Palin.

See Associated Press take on the McCain camp's detailed review of Palin

Here’s an excerpt:

. . . In the days since, Republicans and Democrats have privately questioned whether the Arizona senator chose the first-term governor without fully looking into her background. McCain's campaign has vehemently defended the review.

Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., the lawyer who conducted the review, told The Associated Press in an interview Monday that Palin underwent a "full and complete" examination before McCain chose her. Asked whether everything that came up as a possible red flag during the review already has been made public, Culvahouse said: "I think so. Yeah, I think so. Correct."

Stoking the notion of a rushed examination, a timeline issued by the campaign indicated that McCain initially met Palin in February, then held one phone conversation with her last week before inviting her to Arizona, where he met with her a second time and offered her the job.

Raising additional questions was the campaign's disclosure Monday that Palin's unmarried 17-year-old daughter was pregnant, and reports that Palin's husband, Todd, had been arrested in 1986, when he was 22, for driving under the influence of alcohol.

McCain's campaign has dispatched a team of a dozen communications operatives and lawyers to Alaska.

Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser, said the campaign always planned to send a "jump team" to the eventual running mate's home state to work with the nominee's staff, help with information requests from local and national reporters, and answer questions about documents that were part of the review. . . .

The public search also unearthed details of the Legislature's investigation into the dismissal of Alaska's public safety commissioner, allegedly because he would not fire Palin's former brother-in-law as a state trooper.

Culvahouse said he asked follow-up questions, and "spent a lot of time with her lawyer" on the matter.

"We came out of it knowing all that we could know at the time," he said.

Throughout the process, the campaign said, Davis had multiple conversations with Palin.

The Obama Ethical Drama Deepens

Even some Democrats are yelling to Obama: “Liar, liar, pants on fire!” Read on it gets worse and worse. . .

According to Democratic political insiders at Hotline On Call, “We're fairly certain that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) raised $12 million through the first of March. Banked means banked; pledges don't qualify. About half has come from online donations. . .”

That would be thanks to the useful idiot ill-mannered lefties who always sacrifice truth to power at Daily Kos and MyDD.

This puts Obama out in front of the other Democratic candidates this quarter at least.

Faultline USA Prediction: The horse in the lead at the beginning of this race isn’t likely to finish first!

The Relativity of Obama’s Liberal Morality

I want everyone reading this to realize that Obama is finally in the clear on his 17 year old fine of $375. in parking tickets dating back to his days at Harvard! The following is so funny. I actually thought it was a touch of conservative satire, but NO. This is a perfect example of liberal morality from a liberal blog.

Barack Obama has paid his parking tickets that dated back to his Harvard Law days.

Here are the details . . .
Two weeks before the Illinois senator officially entered the presidential race on February 10, he paid parking fines he received while attending Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a Cambridge city official said on Thursday

I guess this puts him back on my list of top candidates.

The not so hidden message in this: “If he hadn’t been running for president, it wouldn’t have mattered if he paid his tickets or not.”

Obama’s Questionable Stocks???

This is from this morning’s Chicago Tribune . . .

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama began the news conference with a promise to "stick around" to answer reporters' questions about $100,000 he invested in two companies backed by some of his top donors.And stick around he did, following up on his answers Wednesday with a release later of one of the documents related to the investments.

But the Illinois senator's explanations and the supporting document leave lingering issues about the selection of the stocks and the timing of their purchase.

Controversy over Obama's financial dealings could be particularly troubling to the senator because of his advocacy of high ethical standards, both in the state legislature and Congress. He also has benefited from a reformist image.Obama already has had to contend with a controversy over his reliance on a major contributor, Tony Rezko, later indicted in a political corruption probe unrelated to Obama, in transactions related to the purchase of Obama's $1.65 million home. . . .

H/T to the The Elephant Bar

...The investments that stirred concern involve two speculative stocks with business interests influenced by the government: AVI Biopharma, a biotech company, and SkyTerra, a satellite communications company. The transactions were first examined by the Web site thestreet.com and The New York Times later disclosed the involvement of Obama campaign contributors in the companies.AVI was developing a drug to fight avian flu and two weeks after Obama purchased the stock he introduced legislation to increase funding to combat the virus, which was spreading in Asia at the time. SkyTerra received government permission to build a national wireless network on the day Obama purchased his shares. . .

New Black Thought is really giving it to Obama for all of his lies . . .

The more Barack Obama gets public exposure and attention, the more he seems to be morphing in to former Democratic presidential candidates, Al Gore Jr. and John Kerry. He seems to have a real penchant for embellishment and a problem with facts and dates. Add to this an ever growing list of ethical questions, and you have the perfect candidate for President of the United States.

At first I thought that many of the negative portrayals of Sen. Obama were the work of the Clinton hit squad, however, recently the Senator from Illinois has been digging his own hole and throwing dirt on himself without any help from others.

Before I go on, I realize that there are those who will defend the senator, simply because he is not a Republican, and others who will defend him simply because he shares our skin color. This post is not for you. It is for those who actually care about character and truth in a Presidential candidate.

The rest of this is really worth reading!!! New Black Though is questioning Obama’s morality on these issues:

1. Sen. Obama's wife's 160% pay raise 2 months after his election to the senate.
2. Obama’s investments in fund raisers firms
3. His unpaid traffic fines
4. The senator's recent speech commemorating the 1965 Selma March
(This one is too good to miss!!!)

In his speech Obama evoked the names of everyone whose photo has ever graced a black church hand fan, or the walls of black homes for decades. There is only a big problem with all he said, John F. Kennedy was not elected president until 1960, and Selma not until 1967 when Obama was 4 years old and living in Indonesia, and his father had long since returned to Kenya.

Essentially, everything Obama said was either a blatant lie, or a gross lack of knowledge of history. Furthermore, Obama's parents met and conceived Obama before Kennedy was even elected president, or inaugurated in January of 1960. The immigration and foreign exchange program he attributed to JFK was actually introduced under the Eisenhower (a Republican) administration. . .

One of my most viewed and commented upon entries is certainly worth re-reading, especially for the comments still coming in daily!!!

Obama’s Marxist Liberation Theology Church

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, basil's blog, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Jo's Cafe, Overtaken by Events, Rightlinx, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, Conservative Thoughts, The World According to Carl, Right Voices, The Virtuous Republic, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Phastidio.net, The Florida Masochist, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.


Permalink for this entry:
http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/03/obama-ethical-drama-deepens.html

Trackback URL for this entry:
http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/3812496425513325868

Technorati tags: politics, democrats, barack obama, 2008, barack, news, president