Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After-Birth Abortions TheBlaze.com
'The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” '
Well, duhhhh. Of course they do.
'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.” '
The whole point of abortion is selfishness. Women are supposed to be allowed to "pursue their own well-being" no matter how many babies they have to murder to do it.
'The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.'
Yep. how long before people can legally kill their 3 year olds? What's the difference? And how long before the gove decides which people are worthy of the right to life? It won't matter if the parents want the baby or not. It will matter if the government does. And the handicapped and elderly? They are not "real people" and thus won't have the right to life either.
No one is truly free until all humans are free. No one has the right to life until EVERYONES right to life is protected, including the unborn's.
'The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” '
Well, duhhhh. Of course they do.
'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.” '
The whole point of abortion is selfishness. Women are supposed to be allowed to "pursue their own well-being" no matter how many babies they have to murder to do it.
'The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.'
Yep. how long before people can legally kill their 3 year olds? What's the difference? And how long before the gove decides which people are worthy of the right to life? It won't matter if the parents want the baby or not. It will matter if the government does. And the handicapped and elderly? They are not "real people" and thus won't have the right to life either.
No one is truly free until all humans are free. No one has the right to life until EVERYONES right to life is protected, including the unborn's.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you so much for commenting! I love to talk to my readers.
I do ask that there be no anonymous commenters, though. If I am brave enough to put my name on this blog, you should be too:-)
Please keep it civil. Remember we are all human and make mistakes, and that since we can't see each other's faces or hear each other's tone of voice, it is very hard to get the emotion in what we are saying each other. Use lots of emoticons! :-) And show grace and love to each other.