The Presidents message tonight at Newtown

[poncho]

It's too bad you won't answer my "gun free zones" challenge.

Yeah how about it Jack? Answer the challenge.

 

[OldRegular]

Buy you approve of the death of others after being born. You cannot say your are pro-life and be pro-death after birth.

The death of who after they are born, otherwise admit you are a <PA deleted-LE>!

Calling others insects is internationally recognized as hate language. It is the type of language the Nazi's used, was used in Rwanda and other places. So, anyone using such language is pro-death and is using hate language.

Who cares about internationally recognized language? I don't and I doubt that righteousdude2 or anyone else on this Forum does!

The Nazi were defeated67 years ago. Rwanda is long past. Falling back on such an excuse is again childish. <PA deleted - LE>.

I am surprised the moderators allow such language.

I am surprised that the moderators allow those who, by their actions, support abortion on this Board!

 

[OldRegular]

]See, you continue to repeat your falsehood. I have said I am against abortion. But I am also pro-life after birth.

So you have said you are against abortion. You accuse Christians on this Board of being in favor of allowing young children to die because they oppose the endless slaughter of the unborn. Then you whine because, though you are ardent supporters of the party that celebrates the slaughter of the unborn, you are offended when you are accused of supporting that slaughter. You need to take it up with God, not complain on this Board and then falsely accuse others.

]I am against capital punishment

I am in favor of capital punishment and so is SCRIPTURE!

] and am for help those who are malnourished and in ill health.

I suspect most of the people on this Board are also. But if God were weighing your helping the disadvantaged against your support of the slaughter of over 50,000,000 unborn babies how do you think you would fare. Then you whine because someone compares you to a cockroach after you falsely accuse them.

] You cannot be truly pro-life unless you are also in favor of helping folk after they are born are are alive and in need. And you cannot be pro capital punishment and truthfully say your are pro-life. ]

Crabby, think what you are saying. It is unreal. You claim to be pro life because you are against execution of mass murderers yet you continuously endorse mass murder, the slaughter of 50,000,000+ and counting, and the true mass murderers, the abortionists. There are those who support the right to kill a child months after birth if the parents are not really satisfied. This is only a slight extension of the abortionist mindset. Perhaps that man who killed 20 children had the same mindset. They were only children and children don't count.

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.

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”.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“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.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“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.”
However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.

Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled 'What is the problem with euthanasia?'

He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.
Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.

What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.

Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary's University College, said: "If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say 'it's doesn't matter, she can get another one,' is that what we want to happen?
"What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new."

Referring to the term "after-birth abortion", Dr Stammers added: "This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

There is a professor at Princeton who advocates the same slaughter of young children!

 

[OldRegular]

CTB, remember about what happens when we argue with those who will not hear reason.

So defending the slaughter of 50,000,000 million unborn children is reasonable. And you call yourself preachinjesus.

 

[OldRegular]

Preachin, yep, I know. But than I think we do not stop telling the story of Christ just because people refuse to listen.

Did Jesus Christ support the slaughter of the unborn. How can you honestly tell the story of Jesus Christ when you have no concern for the unborn?

We do not stop correcting children in their spelling mistakes just because they make the same mistake again.

So what is the difference between you and that 20 year old in Connecticut? The ones he killed were only a few years older.

In time some will see reason.

And you will not! I am reminded of a verse of Scripture when I consider those who support abortion: Hosea 4:17. Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.

You know Crabby that the Israelites sacrificed their children to false gods just as the abortionists do. God judged them. Perhaps He will judge professing Christians who sacrifice children to false gods. I believe Scripture judges them as pious hypocrites, just like the Pharisees!

When I was younger I would have sided with some folk here on some issues that I do not side with now. But that was when I was younger, dumber and did not understand as I do now.

Old age affects some people like that Crabby! They are confused and mistake that for wisdom.

 

[LadyEagle]

Shutting this down. I am too tired to edit all the personal attacks. This has gone woefully off topic.

Lady Eagle
Moderator