If babies, then why not toddlers?

Posted on March 1, 2012 by KG

‘..Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
…..The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
…..“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
….The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
——–
Ah yes…the “burden on society” argument–which is why statists just love government health care. It gives them unlimited powers to interfere in the lives of the people. (And I’d argue that one of the biggest ‘burdens on society’ is the vast herds of parasitic academics.)
And: “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.?? These so called “ethicists” aren’t liberal fanatics? Pull the other one, you degenerate moral vacuum on legs. A “liberal society” in the sense you’re talking about has no fucking values. You’re anti-life, anti-freedom and anti-morality. Now piss off and euthanize yourself.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to If babies, then why not toddlers?

  1. KG says:
    March 1, 2012 at 05:05

    What’s more, these pricks apparently see no problem with “the state” providing million-dollar housing and a raft of welfare benefits for illegal immigrants at taxpayer’s expense–a cost which must surely dwarf the cost of caring for the disabled. And no mention either of the practice of incestuous intermarriage among primitives from India and Pakistan which produces so many disabled children……apparently some “liberal values” which contribute to the problem are unmentionable.

  2. mawm says:
    March 1, 2012 at 05:23

    Why not teenagers? I could really go along with that at times. :mrgreen:

    In fact, if these ‘ethicists’ really believe in removing the burden on society, I could take them to large areas up north, or even to the gaols, where culling of the ferals would vastly reduce the burden on the NZ taxpayer. :roll:

  3. Ciaron says:
    March 1, 2012 at 05:53

    I see KG has beat me to it :lol:
    Is not the real burden the hordes of by choice unproductive? start there I say.

  4. kowtow says:
    March 1, 2012 at 05:53

    I saw that story and to be honest thought it had to be a prank, you know to draw out us nutty conservatives.
    Tie this in with the gendercide that is going on in the Uk.

    People warned of this, it is the proverbial thin end of the wedge. well that wedge is cracking it wide open.Same with euthanasia.These are the very things the Nazis were detested for only 70 years ago and yet the left and libertarians seek these things as rights now.

    Interestingly while protections are being removed from vulnerable human beings there is a push to extend “human rights ” to animals.

    Strange times.

    • mawm says:
      March 1, 2012 at 09:27

      These are the very things the Nazis were detested for only 70 years ago and yet the left and libertarians seek these things as rights now.

      Is there really much difference? Goebbels would be proud of the left’s MSM propoganda wing, their religious wing, their academic wing, etc., all reaffirming their message. They my not be killing the Jews, Gypsies or dissidents yet, but with the bile that froths from their mouths when discussing Israel and the Joos, the ‘red-neck right-wing’ and the few columnists who actually deconstruct their message they are not far from it. Also they are well along the road to having their own Gestapo with the PC brigade, the Breast Nazi’s, etc.

      Quite frankly I do not see much difference between the left’s dream of ‘one world government’ and the Third Reich.

      • KG says:
        March 1, 2012 at 09:38

        “Quite frankly I do not see much difference between the left’s dream of ‘one world government’ and the Third Reich.”
        Me neither, Mawm. In real terms, they will be indistinguishable.

  5. Ciaron says:
    March 1, 2012 at 05:56

    Although I agree with the headline, Killing babies is no differnt to abortion. Both are wrong.

  6. Bill The Bunyip says:
    March 1, 2012 at 07:46

    As in everything these people do, they first use language to smooth over the reality of what they advocate. Rather than the term “after birth abortion” the correct word is
    Infanticide

  7. Jay says:
    March 1, 2012 at 09:10

    Babies are put to death, but we keep the murderers and rapists alive to be released in a few years.

  8. David says:
    March 1, 2012 at 09:19

    Let’s not forget Old people, they are a financial drain… and the poor people they too cost lotsa money to support, then there’s people in the hospitals, why we could do away with hospitals altogether (They are vastly more expensive than crematoriums) Prisoners? Yep! Lawyers?m Oh hell yeah! Ethicists? Damn straight they make no contribution whatsoever! Oh and let’s not forget politicians they are an empty hole that no amount of money can fill… Hmmm….. we should start with politicians and work our way back until we have enough cash… At least until the lawyers are gone anyway. I think we could do quite well!

  9. Katie says:
    March 1, 2012 at 10:11

    First it will be to allow “Mothers” to kill their children. The the government will step in and kill the child because it doesn’t conform to their ideal of perfection.

    And G-d weeps!

    • Darin says:
      March 1, 2012 at 12:53

      God isn’t weeping Katie,he’s building another emotion-raw unadulterated anger and we all know what happens when he gets angry.

      And when he pours out his wrath it will be terrible and final.Abortion is an abomination that has gone on for too long and I am afraid we are past the point of no return.

  10. Carol-Christian Soldier says:
    March 1, 2012 at 12:03

    Sending this as a link to all of my board members -LA Lutherans for Life-
    Thank you—
    Carol-CS

  11. WAKE UP says:
    March 1, 2012 at 12:22

    ““fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

    What “values”? That’s precisley the problem; they don’t have any and, as ever, confuse “liberality” with “licence”.

    • WAKE UP says:
      March 2, 2012 at 10:58

      The entire purpose of such insane liberality is to tap-dance around, ignore, or indeed destroy, the core values that created our society, leaving a gaping every-man-for-himself nothingness at the centre. If these liberals actually had any “values”, decent people (far from “fanatics”) would still oppose them to the death.

  12. Michael in Nelson says:
    March 1, 2012 at 13:07

    Once you decide that human life does not start at conception then all else is simply drawing arbitrary lines.

  13. Pascal says:
    March 1, 2012 at 15:48

    These people will not be satisfied until Moloch worship is restored.

  14. Right Wing Theocrat says:
    March 1, 2012 at 21:14

    “To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

    Good grief, what an evil bunch of people. They’d be welcomed into the old communist Russia of old, adding to the millions already killed off for whatever evil reason.

    They’d also be welcome in the old nazi germany.

    • Darin says:
      March 1, 2012 at 23:15

      “To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden”

      When arguing the point with people who make this foolish statement(ya,I know it’s like swimming in a sewer) always emphasize the word “might”.

      And then tell them they too “might” be a burden on family and society one day so maybe it’s best they be aborted now.

    • WAKE UP says:
      March 2, 2012 at 11:00

      And not a word about the undesirabilty of having these children who “…might be an unbearable burden on the family ” in the first place

  15. Scumsucker says:
    March 2, 2012 at 04:23

    This is your most powerful post ever Mr CR.

    And to think so many folk believe climate ‘scientists’ too!

  16. Kris K says:
    March 2, 2012 at 08:04

    WebWrat put up a parallel article a few days ago:

    http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/?p=11532#comment-8013

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/?corder=asc#comments

    Scary stuff, Webby.
    With this sort of ‘rationale’ it is easy to see how euthanasia will be justified on the back of existing abortion laws.

    All we have to do is declare someone a “non-person” and hey presto we’re absolved of what would otherwise be called murder.

    And don’t you just love the phrase “after-birth abortion“.

    She’s a brave new world …