Latest Posts

I cannot justify abortions, does not matter how I look at it. Feminist claim the reason is the "rape" issue even though some women have actually gone through that unthinkable abuse and produced the offspring because of the conscience issue. That demonstrates that not all women who suffer that abuse are automatically predetermined to have an abortion as they claim. It demonstrates another feminist lie..
I see children around me all the time and have my own kids and grandkids. I cannot imagine life without them but ofcourse feminists have no problem whatsoever is that area, they have been protesting about it, they have ensured that billions of dollars are made available to carry out that butchery, and butchery it is. I have shown a couple of appalling and heartbreaking images of unborn children carved up like animals and thrown into the rubbish bin..

They justify murdering a newborn child even after it's born, "it" can be murdered. Just because of any reason anyone can justify. If you do not want the child, you should be able to have it killed. The argument is to remove a taboo and introduce that argument into society. That practise is already carried out in Holland. If the child is in anyway disabled, then the parent have the decision to have the child to be put to death..

Every time this issue is raised, out come the hysteria, out comes all the rare and totally unjustifiable situations such as badly disabled children or the feminists favourite claim "rape", which in their mind is their main and only reason but they now demand that that freedom to murder should be open slather for anyone who demands it regardless of the age of the newborn..

Last time I looked, the abortion rate in US currently stands at 1.5 million fetuses removed and will be more by now as records are not honestly kept and does not reflect the real figures..

But feminists will keep promoting it and refuse to let it go as it is one of their mainstay claims that they perceive to be the reason for their existance. Let the "It's my body" claims commence while murder is being performed without so much as it even effecting their already numbed conscience..


On lawfully killing small babies

Andrew Bolt – Friday, March 02, 12 (08:00 am)



It is frightening, and I really mean frightening, that making lawful the murder of newborn babies is now openly recommended by professional “ethicists”:
Alberto Giubilini of Monash University and Dr Francesca Minerva of Melbourne University write in the ironically named Journal of Medical Ethics:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue 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.
On so many ifs is the case for baby-killing built:
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.
And when you go so far, suddenly you no longer know where the boundaries of your new dispensation lie. Can you murder a perfectly healthy baby after two days? Two weeks? Two months? And can the excuse of a few pressing bills to pay really justify such horror?
Two considerations need to be added.
First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.
Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.
And all neatly peer reviewed.
Julian Savulescu, editor of the JME, defends the article’s publication in a way that startlingly illustrates how slippery is that slippery slope that progressives so self-servingly dismiss. In fact, Savulescu has slipped so far down that slide that his defence is barely more sophisticated than that “they’re all doing it anyway” excuse that can licence any mass barbarity:
The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.
The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.
What really shocks Savulescu is not a defence of the killing of healthy babies, but that people should be angry about it:
What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.
What monstrous self-absorption that Savulescu is more offended by a threat to the self-esteem of an ethicist than a threat to the life of a child.
And how liberal is a society that permits the murder of inconvenient babies? Once every school child was taught to value Athens above Sparta on this very point, but now the anti-humanists hold themselves up as the true defenders of our Athenian and Judeo-Christian heritage.
Matthew Archbold:

Here’s the thing - they’re right. If you accept their premises, they’re absolutely right.

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.
(Thanks to readers Tasman, Martin, Erin, GaryM and Stephen.)