A bit of a media uproar was generated by Alberto Giubilini Francesca Minerva who were published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. These two were former associates of the Journal’s Editor, Julian Savulescu, who seems a bit disturbed by the backlash. It seems that some people have written to these two large masses of unproductive tissue that they might be eligible for very late term abortions.
While your friendly Pharmer desires to avoid killing any humans, she is not surprised that the same slippery slope of habitual and gratuitous killing that is now justifying infanticide, would be extended a little further to include bioethicists. After all, that group certainly has less claim than infants do in the area of productivity and value to society. While newborns don’t do too much, they seem to bring a sense of hope and joy to many casual observers. The same is not true for these bioethicists.
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? — Giubilini and Minerva — Journal of Medical Ethics.
After about 40 years of hearing that the pro-lifers’ slippery slope arguments against abortion and euthanasia were not valid, or a departure from reality, Pharmer takes this opportunity to say We TOLD you so!.
As if this is news, the internet has taken up the above example, authored by “bioethicists” (qualified to be on Obama’s health advisory team) that infanticide of any newborn is OK, if the baby is considered inconvenient to the lifestyle of the parents.
Wesley Smith is giving the same article one more go around at Second Hand Smoke. Even he seems tired of writing about them.
What seems to be a shock in the media is just old news to pro-lifers, who knew our leftist, ideological opponents, and realized their nature from the beginning. Killing and slavery is still their thing. They have not evolved to anything higher throughout the centuries.
The question is whether those of us without this appetite for destruction are going to continue to fund the plans of these people to kill and enslave us.
Are you attending to your boycotting? Are you paying attention to the “service” projects that your kids are doing in school? Are you directing your charitable efforts towards groups aligned with your ethical beliefs?
A real live Planned Parenthood Feminist is directing the Waterloo Region of Canada. Angie Murie lets her dark shine:
“I wrestle with gender-based abortion more than any other reason [a person might give for choosing to have an abortion,] Gender? Geez,” she said. “From a macro perspective, I don’t think it’s a very good idea for us to be eliminating women. But if you look at it at the individual level, which is what we do, I don’t have any right to say that one person’s reason is better or worse than another’s.”
Yes, it’s Planned Parenthood’s Waterloo….letting everyone know what pro-lifers knew all along: They’d KILL off the female sex for the sake of $ abortion $. That’s golden handcuffs for ya! You know they need the money and lifestyle when they’re perfectly willing to maintain a policy of killing off their customer base for the current income opportunity.
Canada’s National Post captures dueling abortion supporters on the topic of whether to deny women the choice to preferentially kill their girl babies. Those who recognize the problem of selectively wiping out their customer base must tie their ideology in knots to restrict the women’s “choice” to kill.
Abortion proponents make it easy for us to write the shock articles. They’ve been talking to each other so long that they don’t understand how grotesque they sound to people to whom this killing is unthinkable. Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, Joyce Arthur can’t bring herself to just say no to sex selection abortion, even though she thinks women should be educated not to prefer boys over girls. “As soon as you put any kind of restriction on abortion, it really is a slippery slope,” ….”If you can restrict sex-based abortions, then why can’t you restrict abortions for genetic abnormalities? It’s not a road we should go down.”
Remember when the “slippery slope arguments” made no sense to the pro-aborts, who first sold abortion legalization based upon the “hard cases”?