Fife wrote:That article is a really good exposition of the intellectual attitude of every standard issue Roe-pro-choice person towards human life and the prime human right (the right to your own life).
Not very many of them are honest enough to admit it; probably very many of them are too dumb to realize it.
This pro-life movement is very confusing.......Okeefenokee wrote:I told y'all these people need to be culled.TheReal_ND wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/ ... s-say.htmlThe 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’.
People who oppose killing newborn babies are “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
Now that's not very pro life is it mate?TheReal_ND wrote:I'm flying over there to abort your ass, hombre.
Absolution Style by Premium phpBB Styles
