The "experts" Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva claim in their article in the Journal of Medical Ethics for the after-birth abortion to be legal. Babies are not "actual persons" and do not have a "moral right to life", they say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html Feel free to tell them what you think about their inhuman views: Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au
Who invented abortion? Who has come up to the idea to use people with a different sexual orientation for political benifit? Who caused myxomatose and H1N1 and the other H (lab created) virusses? Who came up with the idea to clone animals? Who came up the idea to do vivisection on animals? Who cam up the idea to start genetic manipulation of crops? This system is pure evil. Everything that has to do with reproduction of humans and food is on the agenda of this system. And people are going to vote again (again give their power to this insane system 6 november) Why can't people see how insane everything is that is going on in this world? (because they keep watching television keep listening to people who talk in such a way that everything that is evil sounds suddenly as acceptable) People should study the extravagances of Rome and NS Germany.
I don't know where you stand on abortion to begin with, but I think the movement to justify "normal" abortion really only opened the pandora's box... Whether your beliefs are spiritual or not, you have to answer the fundamental question - where does humanity begin? A single cell is life, but obviously killing cancer is a good thing. A 2 year old is always considered human, but what exactly has changed from the third trimester until then? It's really just a continuous progression of development. Do we draw the line at first word? first step? first breath? first kick?
How about drawing a line at overly dramatic rants, and sticking with rational discourses and logics? How about drawing a line that differentiates a cluster of living cells from a functioning human being by considering thedevelopment ofwhat makes "life" a potential "human life," like the development if a brain differentiated brain stem when it becomes capable of feeling instead of being an inert cluster of cells, multiplying dividing, and differentiating pretty much as aplant or a cancer would? Prior to that time, the only "human person" to be found is in the imagination and the hopeful expectation of a woman (and a man, when the man is actively involved in that "expectation") who WANT to become parents.
It´s because the people can become fat and drive big cars. Take it away and you have your revolution. Talk about the the crimes the governments commit and they say, you are an enemy. Just take the Burgers and Cars away and the people go mad. We first have to convince the people of moral standards. They have been lost. That´s not a matter of religion or something. Why want they allow child murder, although there are "baby flaps" everywhere? Even giving a baby to such a flap would harm a normal human being for life time. And parents, who would give their babies away for murder are not capable to live in a civilized world.
It all starts with that ludicrous events, where payed "clapers" cheer their party´s candidate and wave stupid tabs. Yeah, that happens when the people are good and take their meds. It all ends with another butcherly war and new elections. Four stupid years followed by another four stupid years. The two big parties create wings like the tea party which are even worse but prevent other parties from getting stronger. This is crazy, man.
So "this system" invented abortion??? Did neanderthals have an "agenda"? Is Rick Santorum your high priest?
If you know them a little, you´d know that they are capable of anything. Means not that Xanadu is right with every statement in his last post here, but means it could be them. But who knows.
Haha, yeah it seems this discussion continually reverts to mad ravings... but everyone can use a good dose of Socrates once and a while to bring focus back on track. Rather than lambaste one another over each's respective moral beliefs, why not address the questions pertinent to what makes an act killing or not?
