Basilisa Marie Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Um, we do realize that the point of this article is to point out the logical inconsistencies associated with not recognizing that a person exists from conception? They aren't ACTUALLY for killing babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1330666580' post='2395250'] Um, we do realize that the point of this article is to point out the logical inconsistencies associated with not recognizing that a person exists from conception? They aren't ACTUALLY for killing babies. [/quote]actually, this isn't satire, they actually ARE for killing babies. it's just two lone bio-ethicists, but their paper was published. the fact that they are serious should be a strong point in the pro-life movement's favor, they have become their own shocking satire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictlyinkblot Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) They used to do that in Ancient Rome. So, when are we going to start leaving unwanted babies to die on the hillside? Disgusting! Edited March 2, 2012 by Strictlyinkblot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1330671466' post='2395262'] actually, this isn't satire, they actually ARE for killing babies. it's just two lone bio-ethicists, but their paper was published. the fact that they are serious should be a strong point in the pro-life movement's favor, they have become their own shocking satire. [/quote] But that doesn't matter. The bigger point shouldn't be that we're just terribly appalled over the idea that they'd even consider this, but that we can use this to point out the logical inconsistencies in the greater pro-choice ideology. If anything, it's a strange victory for the concept of personhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmilyAnn Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) "Post-birth abortion"? Seriously? It's the typical doublespeak language of abortion, twisting words to try and hide the evil. It's called infanticide, it's murder. Edited March 2, 2012 by EmilyAnn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Lord come soon and stop the insanity! Thy KINGDOM COME!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissMaro Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I seem to remember Peter Singer arguing for infanticide in an article of his I read for an Ethics class. The only thing I could agree with him on is that there isn't much difference between killing a baby in the womb and killing one after it's born, but it has always disturbed me that there are people who are willing to argue in favor of murder. And while the Romans and Greeks did leave babies out to die, it was actually against their religious beliefs to kill the babies directly. Granted, a lot of the babies probably did die, and I'm not saying what they did was right, but they had slightly more respect for life than some modern people do. And some of the babies were taken by slavers or by other people who found them, so at least they had a chance at life. That's what my Classics professor told us, anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandelynmarie Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Babies in the womb are not safe & then if newborns aren't safe...it will be a slippery slope for children & other pholks who are dependent on others...especially if they are unwanted. [img]http://img.aquinasandmore.com/items/Our-Lady-of-Guadalupe-Devotional-Cross21454lg.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I believe it is Holland that allows children with disabilities to be killed up to 12 years old. Or at least it was proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle_eye222001 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Ah, the calm cold logic of consistency. The difference between a baby before birth, and after birth, is as similar as a baby born right after birth, and a nine month old baby. The change in size, intelligence, development, physical ability, and dependence on the mom and dad are all arbitrary factors. Trying to pin down these factors to mere numbers is subjective as this paper justly demonstrates. I am glad this paper came out. It can ultimately only help the pro-life cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clare~Therese Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 That's infanticide. Doublespeak, Mr. Orwell! He's rolling in his grave. They should take "ethicist" out of these people's bioethicist title. Ethics is the same thing as morality, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now