The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Finally! The Law That Let’s You Kill Your Baby – After It’s Born

Infanticide!  Margaret Sanger may have dreamed of such a law which allowed for the killing of babies after they had been born, days, even weeks, perhaps as long as months.  It is certainly a dream, a concept, and a passion, rooted in bowels of liberalism.  The law that allows the parents of a child born, say with Down Syndrome or Sickle Cell Anemia, which has been championed and rigorously fought for, albeit deceptively, quietly, under the radar of most people who might have a complaint of two about it, is here – almost, anyway.  But such a law is nigh on to becoming reality sooner than it has ever been.  We are now in the penultimate stage of seeing that law created.  So near to becoming a law is it, people are openly discussing the idea without regret or remorse, without fear of repudiation, without any part of their conscience telling them (getting in they way of telling them) just how immoral such a law would be.  Even Barack Obama supports it.  They call it “after-birth abortion” rather than infanticide.  But infanticide is still what it is.

Just who is proposing a law which allows for the killing of a baby after it has been born?  Why, “ethicists” of course.  Two, in fact, by the names of Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, who have written an article detailing their modest “proposal” in the Journal of Medical Ethics.  The only difference between this proposal, and the one made long, long ago by Jonathon Swift is that Swift was joking, using satire to illustrate his point.  As of yet, neither Alberto or Francesca have shouted “April Fools!”.

They argue, that for the good of the family, and of society, such babies which would become, and would have the potential to be, a burden, a drain, a never-ending cause of emotional distress for family members, neighbors and society at large, it must be acceptable to kill the baby after it has been born.

They argue babies born with malady’s, diseases, incurable inflictions and where the quality of life is diminished, even slightly, there is justification and warrant for killing the baby.  The cost to treat whatever ailment the baby might be born with is enough, these two “ethicists” insist to commit infanticide.

This all leads to an interesting, yet disturbing question.  If a baby born with some form of illness can legally be killed after its birth, why then, would the law not eventually come to include infants as young as two or three years of age who develop a condition that, although it is treatable, may be too costly for the parents?  Why not young kids at age five or six?  Can we kill kids at nine or ten?  How about killing kids who are going through puberty and who have become, to us, too much to handle?  What about all those kids who join gangs and sell drugs, bully other kids, kill other people in gang wars?  Why can’t we kill them too?

How about children who get below a “C” average in school.  They obviously are not going to grow up to be productive citizens.  Why not spare them, and society, from the inevitable.  How about the homeless?  There is your solution for that right there – infanticide for the homeless!  The elderly?  Killing the elderly has been a fantasy for generations of science fiction writers and readers.  Why not make the final leap into bold new territory.  In other words, if we can legally kill a baby after it has been born, where does it stop and where ought it to stop?

Alberto and Francesca argue that a new-born baby is not yet a person, and thus does not deserve to be recognizes as a person.  They say:

“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.”

In other words, anyone, at any age, from birth up until the point of death – even at the ripe old age of 100 – who cannot care for themselves would be subject to an “ethical” disposal.  Both “ethicists” reject the term euthanasia:

As the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated.

Ladies and gentleman – do you grasp just how many millions of people cannot “properly take care of themselves” in this world we live in?  And if we leave the definition of what it means to “properly take care of ones self” in the hands of “ethicisits” like Alberto and Francesca, how many millions more will be subjected to “after-birth abortion”?  In other words, do we really think this move begins and ends with newborns?  Legally killing people who are a “detriment to society” is, and has been, a goal of liberalism for decades.  That includes the homeless, the poor, those with any infirmities; it includes runaways, kids and adults with any type of social disorder, alcoholics and drug addicts – the list is endless.  Well, by their standards, these “ethicists” would even consider illegal aliens a “detriment to society”.  And while conservatives would only have them deported, liberals would actually have them killed.

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.

So what happens if none of these “circumstances” develop in a child for a few years?  Is it the parents fault that the kid didn’t get sick quick enough so they could kill it as soon after birth as they might have wanted?  What happens when a child of any age develops something of a nature which “puts the well-being of the family at risk”?  Why should parents of a preteen, or a teen, be forced by law to suffer through their children’s maladies?

You know, it is a fact college tuition is expensive.   And getting those braces, “even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life” after their teeth had been straightened is still quite an expense.  What about all the unforeseen accidents, falling off ones bike, roller skates or skateboard, for instance?  How about all the sports injuries a child incurs throughout his or her life?  What happens if a child, a teen, is involved in a car accident and is paralyzed?  Don’t any of these “circumstances” quality to be “considered acceptable instances where” regardless of at what age, they are “putting the well-being of the family at risk”?  Money is tight, Obama’s economy is in utter chaos and the “food stamp President” has no idea how to turn it around.  Obama supports abortion; he supports infanticide; he supports euthanasia.  What else, what other “methods” of disposing of living human beings would he support?

The idea of killing babies after they have been born is not a new one.  Such practices had been in use thousands of years ago.  The Romans used to put their babies on a hill-top and leave them there, exposed to the harsh weather conditions and animals that would eat them.  Margaret Sanger, pride of Planned Parenthood, and its founder, supported eugenics, abortion, euthanasia, any method to “get rid of” the unsavory, the people who were a drain on society and who were ruining society, from her point of view, and for everyone else.

What these two “ethicists” in Australia have proposed is nothing new.  What is new is that their proposal has been published at all, and has been published in a magazine which purportedly deals in “medical ethics”.  What is new is that anyone would take these two seriously.  What is new is that many people do take them seriously.   Do you want to venture a guess as to how many people who take them seriously are liberal, as opposed to conservative?

Ladies and gentleman – this 2012 election is really about life versus death.  Democrats and liberals support ideas like abortion, euthanasia, and what these two “ethicists” call “after-birth abortion”, but which we know to be infanticide.  Barack Obama himself supports infanticide.  Conservatives value life and fight for it, which is why we are so vilified by the MSM and the Left.  We accept their criticism because we know what we are doing is right.  Either life has value or it doesn’t.  Liberals don’t value life.

Do you need any more proof that Democrats are trying to kill you, all of us?  Conservatives are working hard to save lives, at all ages, from pre-birth through death.  We are working just as hard to save lives as liberals are working to kill lives.  The more Democrats we elect to congress the harder we must work – because the more Democrats we elect to congress the more lives that are put in danger.  Democrats would support an “after-birth abortion” law.  They support abortion and infanticide; they support euthanasia and mercy killing.  Why would anyone disagree Democrats would be opposed to a law that lets parents kill their child after it has been born?

Which is why the apt slogan for this 2012 election really is – Vote Democrat and Die!

Single Post Navigation

10 thoughts on “Finally! The Law That Let’s You Kill Your Baby – After It’s Born

  1. B. Barnes on said:

    Would you mind citing your source that says Obama supports “after-birth abortions”?

  2. It was Obama’s opposition to and veto of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act while a Senator in the Illinois Assembly. The bill was intended to protect the life of a baby that survived what ultimately turned out to be a botched abortion. In other words, in a “normal” abortion the baby is killed while still in the womb. This sometimes does not go as planned, and when the baby is pulled out from the womb, once in a while it is still alive. Abortionists would then go ahead and “finish the job” outside of the womb.

  3. RhondaBear49 on said:

    They say like attracts like. Check out also the people Obama has or has had in his cabinet. John P. Holdren, Cass sunstien and Ezekiel Immanuel, Google them and read the things they have written or said. You will have no doubt about what Obama is for.

  4. Stephanie on said:

    I’m against abortion as much as the next guy and even more so having the baby then killing it if they were born with some sort of illness but this article sounds incredibly bias and stupid . Being so sarcastic and talking about a whole group as if they were one person makes you sound ignorant.

  5. I’m with Stephanie. I got half way through your rant and got bored. It’s sad that this law is even being considered, but your passion is ill contained and undermines your credibility. You should probably avoid the use of blatantly obvious straw man arguments as well.

    Note: Not sure what your purpose was in this but I’d imagine it was to raise awareness. The tone and arguments in your rant preach to the choir that agrees with you. It might be worth your while to spend some time thinking about what could change the minds of those who disagree with you. It looks much more like this article was fueled by your passion than your wit.

  6. Rene J. Kirchheimer on said:

    Hah! conservatives who are gun-ho with the bible, read Deut:13/6 trough 10; as well as Deut.:21/ 18 trough 21. So it’s not an idea invented by “liberals” at all,
    intolerance is what the Bible feeds to the mind of the blind believers, as well as to the non-believers on the rebound without their being aware of it. We must discard the baggage we carry culturally and base our morals and ethical views on practical and logical criteria based on secular thinking, based on our evolved human conscience. We have to stop basing our thinking on supersticious made up myths of thousands of years ago. My conscience is my guide, I know right from wrong, contrary to the bible’s idea that Adam and Eve did the wrong thing on finding out what right and wrong consists of. That’s what sets us apart from animals. I am not an atheist, but I certainly don’t believe in the bible’s description of “GOD”.

  7. Nauman Zahid on said:

    I wish the law allowed me to ethically kill the author right after he finished writing this retarded pile of garbage.

  8. JENNIFER on said:

    YOU ARE NOT A PARENT IF U WANT TO KILL YOU BABY AFTER ITS BORN

  9. Sarah Ashburn on said:

    Wow! How sad……Don’t even know what to say. Killing kids? No person in there right mind could do this.

  10. kill all the retards!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: