Journal defends its publication of an article advocating “after-birth abortion”

posted at 6:35 pm on February 28, 2012 by Tina Korbe

The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics today defended his decision to publish an article in which two ethicists advocated “after-birth abortion.” What was truly surprising about the article, editor Julian Savulescu writes, is not that the authors find infanticide morally permissible — but, rather, that opponents to infanticide would react to the article with vehemence. From Savulescu’s defense:

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 the response to this article reveals, through the microscope of the web, is the deep disorder of the modern world. Not that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement.

Savulescu might have a point that some of the responses to the article crossed the line. Of those he quoted, a couple were overtly racist and at least one was an outright death threat to anyone who would willingly perform an “after-birth abortion.” But that he doesn’t see the arguments forwarded by the authors as evidence of “the deep disorder of the modern world” is far more disturbing than comments thoughtlessly dashed off by justifiably outraged opponents of infanticide. The Blaze outlines the article’s original arguments:

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:

“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.

[...]

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.”

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

Once upon a time, abortion advocates would accuse pro-lifers of “slippery slope logic” when those pro-lifers suggested it was only a matter of time before someone would use the abortion advocates’ arguments to defend infanticide. According to Savulescu, that began to happen a long time ago — and it continues to happen today. Turns out, it is a slippery slope, after all. If humans don’t have a right to life from the moment of conception, when does the right to life kick in? The moment a human becomes a person? When is that? Who determines when? The standard becomes movable — and, consequently, impossible to uphold.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

“My body, my choice. Once it’s OUT of my body and not part of me in any @#$%ing way? Are these people insane?”

-A rabidly pro-choice friend

MelonCollie on February 28, 2012 at 8:02 PM

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.

So can we post-partum abort Democrats as well?

malclave on February 28, 2012 at 8:03 PM

So can we post-partum abort Democrats as well?

malclave on February 28, 2012 at 8:03 PM

No. That’s where the aspca steps in.

WryTrvllr on February 28, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Well, nathor, you don’t find Conservatives or even the moderates espouse infanticide like the liberals. Never to that level.

Voter from WA State on February 28, 2012 at 7:49 PM

I read comments by very extreme conservatives defending the genocide of our enemies.
there are crazies and extremes everywhere. you should be careful not coloring the an whole group by the action of the few, and in this case, the very very few. its senseless.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 8:05 PM

We don’t need “radical” Catholicism. We just need true Christians who live by The Book. We have a pretty good road map in the Bible.

Voter from WA State on February 28, 2012 at 7:56 PM

I am a Catholic, and the Church is, was, and will always consider abortion at any stage of life as murder. But my adamant pro-life stance has less to do with religion, and more to do with abortion-on-demand being a human rights issue. If premeditated first degree murder is considered a large enough crime that one can be put away for quite a while, then so should abortion. Plain and simple.

The ONLY cases I’d allow for abortion, is either a baby as a result of rape, or if the mother’s life would be questionable should she have to give birth…C-section or not.

JetBoy on February 28, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Indeed. Ghoulish how the Journal of Medical Ethics publishes this atrocity. This reminds me, weren’t Jews considered mentally retarded and people who could be ethically dispensed with by the Nazis? Herald of Woe on February 28, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Yes the NAZIS had their own manual we fought a world war to defeat these basteds.

Example Eugenics is Evil. We fought in a world war against eugenicist. See: (HOLOCAUST) eugenicist who believed there was such a thing as a master race.
Desire to terminate inferior races grew out of book entitled “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life” written by Alfred Ploetz and published in 1904. Ploetz argued that certain classes of humans were unworthy and should be terminated. Classes included homosexuals, mentally retarded and those who are “below the beasts.” Nazis later classified Jews as “sub-human”.

Dr Evil on February 28, 2012 at 8:07 PM

I mean, you all taken the bait like the mindless fish you are. find real reasons to demonize your enemies. this is pathetic.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Tell it to the millions of babies already aborted in this country.

And while you’re at it, why don’t you go and stand up, turn around and take a look back through out history at all the other millions upon millions of innocent men, women and and children murdered at the hands of their own governments.

Mathew 18:6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

The above is what Jesus said about causing children to stumble. Imagine what He thinks about those who would murder children.

JellyToast on February 28, 2012 at 8:10 PM

When murdering helpless sentient beings, what have we become?
I daresay we are no longer in the image of what we once thought.
We are now the fallen as well.

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 8:10 PM

I read comments by very extreme conservatives defending the genocide of our enemies.
there are crazies and extremes everywhere. you should be careful not coloring the an whole group by the action of the few, and in this case, the very very few. its senseless.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 8:05 PM

wow. who knew 6 month olds could fire an AK,much less detonate centex.

WryTrvllr on February 28, 2012 at 8:10 PM

I apologize for not reading all the posts but I am glad I am not the only one who saw that these tools have given a pardon to every mass murder in history.

Claimsratt on February 28, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Herald of Woe on February 28, 2012 at 7:58 PM

I’ve come to the realization that people who call themselves ethicists usually have zero ethics.

JellyToast on February 28, 2012 at 8:13 PM

“after birth abortion”

That’s rather like saying bombing Hiroshima was a pre-emptive strike against Japan.

We ain’t seen nothing yet. Wait until these Socialist bastards control all transportation, food, water, electricity and communications. Forget that martial law crap—they won’t need it as we’ll be cowed into hunkering down and seeing to our families’ basic subsistence-under their beneficent oversight of course.

These jokers are getting bolder by the month, and few out there seem to give a damn.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 28, 2012 at 8:14 PM

I read comments by very extreme conservatives defending the genocide of our enemies.
there are crazies and extremes everywhere. you should be careful not coloring the an whole group by the action of the few, and in this case, the very very few. its senseless.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Two wrongs don’t make a right. You can’t point to bad acts from one group to defend bad acts by another. Either you keep straddling that fence, and get splinters or jump off, and figure out there is more safety in numbers, that’s a human instinct survival.

It doesn’t require religion or a belief in God to be pro life. I am pro life, because I am pro human being. I am pro my own species if it comes down to your life nathor or some endangered species getting an extension, I am going to pick you. We have the big brain and are at the top of the food chain, there is safety in numbers it’s that freaking simple.

Dr Evil on February 28, 2012 at 8:15 PM

We ain’t seen nothing yet. Wait until these Socialist bastards control all transportation, food, water, electricity and communications. Forget that martial law crap—they won’t need it as we’ll be cowed into hunkering down and seeing to our families’ basic subsistence-under their beneficent oversight of course.

These jokers are getting bolder by the month, and few out there seem to give a damn.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 28, 2012 at 8:14 PM

No, we haven’t.

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 8:15 PM

When does a person have the right to life?

To these people, when they espouse the same views as the person making the decision. E.g. when they’re sprouting liberal talking points. With people like us, we aren’t worthy of life and therefore even 90th trimester abortions (or early death from death panels) are not really killing

Defector01 on February 28, 2012 at 8:16 PM

No surprise to me. Liberals are always pushing for “open discussion” on these matters (their causes), and like angst filled teens looking for an identity that separates them from their parents, they will always embrace new or controversial thoughts to give themselves that identity.

I’ve seen leftists on discussion forums advocate for infanticide 6 months after birth, arguing that the child is not sapient before then.

everything that fuels their thinking revolves around population control: Homosexuality, Abortion, Subsidized contraception, Redefining marriage and good old eugenics. Secular Humanists have no faith in humanity what so ever.

Daemonocracy on February 28, 2012 at 8:16 PM

I’ve come to the realization that people who call themselves ethicists usually have zero ethics.

JellyToast on February 28, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Because the only market for ethicists is in seeing how far they can push the envelope. Same with statisticians.

WryTrvllr on February 28, 2012 at 8:17 PM

So, given this author’s premise… can anyone show me the difference between “liberal values” and “sociopathy”?

I’m not sure I see the difference.

gekkobear on February 28, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Journal of Medical Ethics

Um, no. Not by a long shot if you are killing babies.

A Modern Version of the Hippocratic Oath

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.

I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

FLconservative on February 28, 2012 at 8:18 PM

That’s rather like saying bombing Hiroshima was a pre-emptive strike against Japan.

We ain’t seen nothing yet. Wait until these Socialist bastards control all transportation, food, water, electricity and communications. Forget that martial law crap—they won’t need it as we’ll be cowed into hunkering down and seeing to our families’ basic subsistence-under their beneficent oversight of course.

These jokers are getting bolder by the month, and few out there seem to give a damn.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 28, 2012 at 8:14 PM

We already have commisars(czars) and a politburo. The TSA controls the flow of transportation and does random ID checks. Papers please! What is the nature of your travel this evening? We have detention centers and the authority to indefinitely detain citizens. They control land and water use.

We are screwed. The freedom bird flew a long time ago. Once they feel secure in their power, things will move even faster into making America in a communist hellhole.

What can we do but vote while we can?

tom daschle concerned on February 28, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Because the only market for ethicists is in seeing how far they can push the envelope. Same with statisticians

That isn’t their only market.

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 8:19 PM

If humans don’t have a right to life from the moment of conception, when does the right to life kick in? The moment a human becomes a person? When is that?

This has probably already been said, but, if so, I must repeat it.

Hey, I’ll answer that for you Tina. Personhood begins, apparently, when you register yourself as a Democrat voter.

Count me out.

dissent555 on February 28, 2012 at 8:20 PM

When does a person have the right to life?

To these people, when they espouse the same views as the person making the decision. E.g. when they’re sprouting liberal talking points. With people like us, we aren’t worthy of life and therefore even 90th trimester abortions (or early death from death panels) are not really killing

Defector01 on February 28, 2012 at 8:16 PM

No. It’s a good thing, ’cause now britain is using the crematorium energy to heat a nearby public swimming pool.

….that have such people in it.

WryTrvllr on February 28, 2012 at 8:21 PM

I mean, you all taken the bait like the mindless fish you are. find real reasons to demonize your enemies. this is pathetic.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 7:39 PM

~~~~~~~~~~

It’s an article that is considering the question of whether it would be permissible to kill a baby, and speculates about when a baby should be considered enough of a human that it would be spared from being killed…don’t you think that just maybe, this issue would be a bridge too far, and be worthy of contempt?

ellifint on February 28, 2012 at 8:21 PM

This also explains a lot. He doesn’t even have an MD

Julian Savulescu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Julian Savulescu is a Romanian-Australian philosopher and bioethicist. He is Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, Fellow of St Cross College, Oxford, Director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, and Head of the Melbourne–Oxford Stem Cell Collaboration, which is devoted to examining the ethical implications of cloning and embryonic stem cell research. He is the editor of the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics, which was until 2005 the highest impact journal in medical and applied ethics (as ranked by Thomson-ISI Journal Citation Indices). In addition to his background in applied ethics and philosophy, he also has a background in medicine and completed his MBBS (Hons) at Monash University. His approach is consistently utilitarian and he draws heavily on notions of rational outcomes.
Contents  [hide] 
1 Writings and ideas
2 See also
3 External links
4 References
[edit]Writings and ideas

In some of his publications he has argued for the following: (1) That parents have a responsibility to select the best children they could have given all of the relevant genetic information available to them, a principle that he extends to the use of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic diagnoses (PGD) in order to determine the intelligence of embryos and possible children.[1] (2) That stem cell research is justifiable even if one accepts the view of the embryo as a person.[2] His argument is based on the principle that killing is justified if some of those at risk of being killed stand to benefit from the killing and whether those benefits are more likely in a world in which the killing occurs. Thus, he concludes that even if embryonic stem cell research involves the killing of a person, it is justified.

FLconservative on February 28, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Not for us to forgive. BTW, why do pro-abortionists have such a hard time taking a clear stand? Neither you or nathor condemn this line of thinking, instead you both act defensively for no apparent reason.

NotCoach on February 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM

that you can’t read, is not my problem…maybe O’s right, and not so much of a ‘snob’ when he urges people to widen their horizons/complete their education…which part of moi stating that these Australian doctors’ positions are very, very extreme and untenable, struck you as not condemning their line of thinking? does it sound to you like I am approving or agreeing with their position? then why, I might ad I would call their ideas/positions as extreme and untenable?…might you not know what untenable mean? let me help you a little here, it means indefensible…oh, I see, you have a point there, I haven’t called them ‘murderous monsters’ or ‘ghouls’…well then, ok, I promise I shall make myself familiar with the acceptable ‘terminology’ in reference to them…meanwhile shall I do something dramatic too, to prove and reinforce my disagreement and disapproval with said doctors…I don’t know, any suggestions??…shall I pull my hairs, shall I do a ‘dear leader’-style public crying session, would that satisfy your definition of a ‘clear stand’???…gee people, get a life…

jimver on February 28, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Because the only market for ethicists is in seeing how far they can push the envelope. Same with statisticians

That isn’t their only market.

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 8:19 PM

So give me more. Like figuring out the minimum number of subjects in a trial to reach a 95% confidence interval? Never see anyone debating the ethics of a standard burial. Enlighten me. Seriously.

WryTrvllr on February 28, 2012 at 8:27 PM

“after birth abortion”

ehh, that’s nuthin, It’s just a death panel for infants under OBAMACARE.

I know McCain and his whole campaign sucked but…………….
…..HOLY FREEKING COW America you are pretty bleeping stupid to have elected PRESIDENT INFANTICIDE.

God help us survive this Administration.

PappyD61 on February 28, 2012 at 8:28 PM

jimver on February 28, 2012 at 8:25 PM

I daresay you don’t have any condemnation of anything.
When they come for you, who will have your back?

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 8:29 PM

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.

Next up: Old people, the disabled, and people who don’t agree with Progressive “correct thinking”.

Mr Galt on February 28, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Under this new “abortion” procedure can I also avoid the stress of having any of those nasty infants that have brown eyes? If I don’t like the shape of their nose can I just get rid of them too? I mean it would really be stressful being punished with a child with a ugly nose.

Oh, and could we do the same for Seniors? Kind of like a real “early retirement” (giggle giggle).

VIVA OBAMA 2012!!!

PappyD61 on February 28, 2012 at 8:30 PM

I read comments by very extreme conservatives defending the genocide of our enemies.
there are crazies and extremes everywhere. you should be careful not coloring the an whole group by the action of the few, and in this case, the very very few. its senseless.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 8:05 PM

What works for them doesn’t work for us. Haven’t you gotten that yet?

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 28, 2012 at 8:30 PM

I think the journal cited here is a travesty along with the article itself.

It appears the authors may be utilizing behavioral theory/B.F. Skinner’s notion that a baby is born without the notion of self. That the infant does not have a notion of self in the early stages and that this realization only comes as it develops. Only later in the development process does the infant realize it is an individual separate from its environment. It is that time when one realizes the reflection in the mirror is that of “me” and not something else. Note that only few animals, the African Grey Parrot one perhaps,, can equal this feat….

In any event, I find this argument in favor of infanticide to be beastly ……

Sherman1864 on February 28, 2012 at 8:30 PM

So give me more. Like figuring out the minimum number of subjects in a trial to reach a 95% confidence interval? Never see anyone debating the ethics of a standard burial. Enlighten me. Seriously.

WryTrvllr on February 28, 2012 at 8:27 PM

I do believe you misunderstood me. I was only inferring that is not the only market they want to reach.

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 8:31 PM

I daresay you don’t have any condemnation of anything.

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 8:29 PM

which part of moi stating that these Australian doctors’ positions are very, very extreme and untenable, struck you as not condemning their line of thinking?

I know jimver’s a liberal, but really now, learn to read.

MelonCollie on February 28, 2012 at 8:32 PM

I had to read this article twice to make sure I wasn’t missing something. I cannot fathom anyone defending this practice in the United States of America. When I held my two children moments after their birth, I would have sacrificed anything for them, even my life, for them to live. Nothing has changed since. Isn’t that what makes us human? I served our country for 30 years and I’m beginning to wonder if our society will be worth defending if this is where
liberal society is taking us.

skyhawka4 on February 28, 2012 at 8:33 PM

I do believe you misunderstood me. I was only inferring that is not the only market they want to reach.

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Got it. Mea culpa.

WryTrvllr on February 28, 2012 at 8:34 PM

I was only speaking to him. I can read, I think you mean comprehend?

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Several years ago, I actually heard a Prog say that a human being didn’t become a person until he graduated from high school. I had to ask him, if what he said was true, then just who was Prime Minister of Great Britain between 1990 and 1997?

Progs are always trying to move the “Personhood Window” to suit whatever goals they want. They hate capitalism so corporate personhood must be destroyed even though doing so would harm small business owners. They don’t want to be responsible for their own sexual behaviour so a foetus isn’t a human being if the mum decides to abort it, but if a drunk abortionist runs a red light and kills a pregnant woman, he can be charged with 2 counts of second degree murder or vehicular homicide. A Down’s Syndrome baby is defective and should be able to be put down after birth because it can’t ever really be a person.

Resist We Much on February 28, 2012 at 8:36 PM

I know jimver’s a liberal, but really now, learn to read.

MelonCollie on February 28, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Excuse me. I meant to put this in for my previous post.

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 8:36 PM

The ONLY cases I’d allow for abortion, is either a baby as a result of rape, or if the mother’s life would be questionable should she have to give birth…C-section or not.

JetBoy on February 28, 2012 at 8:06 PM

But if it’s pre-meditated murder, the father of the fetus shouldn’t make a difference. It seems a given that we all have a right to self defense, even if it means taking someone else’s life, but if you allow abortion in cases of rape, then you are still treating the fetus as not deserving of life.

I understand the reasoning, but that’s not consistent. Which isn’t to say I’d want to tell a rape victim what to do, and ultimately, I’d accept any compromise that meant less abortions, the vast majority of which are not the product of rape or incest.

As to the article, at least they are consistent, for whatever that’s worth. It’s insane that we arrest scared teenagers who dump a prom baby but consider Dr. Tiller a fine upstanding citizen who was a martyr for his cause.

Esthier on February 28, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Excuse me. I meant to put this in for my previous post.

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 8:36 PM

I see. Then consider my previous post null and void.

MelonCollie on February 28, 2012 at 8:39 PM

…if you allow abortion in cases of rape, then you are still treating the fetus as not deserving of life.

Esthier on February 28, 2012 at 8:39 PM

When you put it that way, I guess :P

Seriously tho, allowing for abortion in rape cases is simply a choosing of the lesser of two evils. I can’t imagine forcing rape victims to carry to term.

JetBoy on February 28, 2012 at 8:45 PM

I see. Then consider my previous post null and void.

MelonCollie on February 28, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Thank you sir, I believe we are on the same page. :)
I do wish I could articulate with words as well as I think I speak.

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Once again, it is the living that make the argument for abortion. And now for after-birth abortion.

Do these reprehensible “people” understand that for the grace of their parents, they have the opportunity to postulate such hog-wash? If they could have, would either of these two authors volunteered to be aborted, before or after birth?

Think of the millions of abortions that have taken place. Any two, selected at random and allowed to live, would have made the world a better place than these to authors.

Mallard T. Drake on February 28, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Two wrongs don’t make a right. You can’t point to bad acts from one group to defend bad acts by another. Either you keep straddling that fence, and get splinters or jump off, and figure out there is more safety in numbers, that’s a human instinct survival.

this is not about that, its about build up false perceptions on our political enemies based on some obscure eccentric rambling on the interwebs

It doesn’t require religion or a belief in God to be pro life. I am pro life, because I am pro human being. I am pro my own species if it comes down to your life nathor or some endangered species getting an extension, I am going to pick you. We have the big brain and are at the top of the food chain, there is safety in numbers it’s that freaking simple.

Dr Evil on February 28, 2012 at 8:15 PM

i agree. in that sense we are both “prolife”

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 8:48 PM

We hold these truths to be self evident, That all persons are created equal once we deem them to be a person, and as long as we deem them to be of some value (if however you become a burden on society all bets are off) and endowed with the alienable rights that the government wishes to grant.

Gwillie on February 28, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Seriously tho, allowing for abortion in rape cases is simply a choosing of the lesser of two evils. I can’t imagine forcing rape victims to carry to term.

JetBoy on February 28, 2012 at 8:45 PM

I daresay, it would take the person to determine that. I would hope with all my being they would not hold fault to a child which was not their doing. I cannot speak for all. In effect, I don’t believe the child did anything to deserve to die.

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 8:50 PM

This sick and beyond evil. Excuse me while I go vomit.

jawkneemusic on February 28, 2012 at 8:51 PM

What works for them doesn’t work for us. Haven’t you gotten that yet?

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 28, 2012 at 8:30 PM

I leave to partisan hacks like you to dance that tune. I pass.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 8:51 PM

I havent read it all yet, however:

Conclusions

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.

Isnt this the pro-life argument restated? Killing a fetus is like killing a newborn, IF you wouldnt kill a newborn you shouldnt kill a fetus. IF you’re for killing a fetus then you are in fact pro infanticide.

Dash on February 28, 2012 at 8:52 PM

I leave to partisan hacks like you to dance that tune. I pass.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 8:51 PM

You think this is about politics. Poor fellow.

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 8:53 PM

The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics today defended his decision to publish an article in which two ethicists advocated “after-birth abortion.”

Dr. Josef Mengele the Nazi “Angel of Death” sure could have used these two “ethicists” to justify his actions.

RJL on February 28, 2012 at 8:55 PM

I daresay, it would take the person to determine that. I would hope with all my being they would not hold fault to a child which was not their doing. I cannot speak for all. In effect, I don’t believe the child did anything to deserve to die.

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Absolutely…it’s a decision left to the mother in this instance. And you’re right, the child did nothing to deserve abortion. Once again, we have to consider which is worse, the abortion, or requiring the mother to go 9 months, and give birth.

Rape is not something trivial. It’s horrible enough on it’s own, but when the result of the rape is a child, the sky is the limit on the well being and a bunch of psychological issues.

JetBoy on February 28, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Please dont talk about the pro-life stuff. Its embarrassing for our betters!

Valkyriepundit on February 28, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 28, 2012 at 8:14 PM

We already have commisars(czars) and a politburo. The TSA controls the flow of transportation and does random ID checks. Papers please! What is the nature of your travel this evening? We have detention centers and the authority to indefinitely detain citizens. They control land and water use.

We are screwed. The freedom bird flew a long time ago. Once they feel secure in their power, things will move even faster into making America in a communist hellhole.

What can we do but vote while we can?

tom daschle concerned on February 28, 2012 at 8:19 PM

True. And these Citizens playing along know better, but:

1. They are more worried about their damn jobs than they are the Bill of Rights and the principles of Liberty.
2. They’ve been brainwashed by an overpowering Leftist media machine over their lifetimes.
3. They are in total awe of the awesomeness of their respective governments (Federal, state, local). “Uncle Sam knows best” is where they seem to be coming from.
4. If we aren’t with them, then we are certainly against them, and we Conservatives are the racists, subversives and potential terrorists.

But, a lot of it comes from this “every man for himself” attitude that I’ve grown up with in this country. Being responsible for yourself and not being a burden on others is a good virtue to be sure, but us retreating into our own personal domains while these Communist activists organize and take over everything around us has done us no good.

While we Conservatives were minding our own business, going to work, paying taxes and being responsible for ourselves (as we should be), they have been out there organizing, marching, and working themselves into every facet of our society’s power structure. “We” allowed these bastards to own the streets during the ’60s and early ’70s, and more recently over Iraq on up through the OWS BS.

But, we don’t believe in all that, it’s not in our nature, and we have no agenda for “Hope and Change” like they do, so it’s natural that we stay at home and don’t confront them. Besides, we’ll end up in jail…they may, too, but we’ll be vilified and listed by the authorities, and they’ll be lionized by the Dems, the alphabet networks, Hollywood, Academia and so on. We’d be hurt by this far more than them.

Lastly, we’re allowing them to choose what we focus on, while they do the real damage pretty much unnoticed. Most of what we bitch about on forums like this is meant for our consumption…we’re ignoring what the other hand is doing.

We are being manipulated, and quite masterfully I may add. Goebbels was an amateur compared to these creeps.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 28, 2012 at 8:58 PM

What works for them doesn’t work for us. Haven’t you gotten that yet?

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 28, 2012 at 8:30 PM

I leave to partisan hacks like you to dance that tune. I pass.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Um, you didn’t really respond to what I said. Cutting and pasting what I wrote, and then saying you’ll pass after an insult serves no purpose.

If you care to debate this issue logically, I’m willing to give it a try.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 28, 2012 at 9:01 PM

I daresay you don’t have any condemnation of anything.
When they come for you, who will have your back?

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 8:29 PM

I daresay you failed reading comprehension long time ago…that, or your obfuscation on the matter is just faux…

I do wish I could articulate with words as well as I think I speak.

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 8:45 PM

really, when you speak you don’t use ‘words’? :-)…I rest my case…

jimver on February 28, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Seriously tho, allowing for abortion in rape cases is simply a choosing of the lesser of two evils. I can’t imagine forcing rape victims to carry to term.

JetBoy on February 28, 2012 at 8:45 PM

And I agree honestly, but that is still the point with pro-choicers, forcing any woman to carry to term. Of course those who weren’t raped clearly had a choice to have sex, knowing full well that it could lead to pregnancy, but then a large number of women who have abortions were using a contraception method, albeit poorly.

But that to me, is why abortion is unlikely to ever go away. Which is such a horrible shame, because I believe it’s harmful to everyone involved, even the women who were victims of rape.

Esthier on February 28, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Absolutely…it’s a decision left to the mother in this instance. And you’re right, the child did nothing to deserve abortion. Once again, we have to consider which is worse, the abortion, or requiring the mother to go 9 months, and give birth.

Rape is not something trivial. It’s horrible enough on it’s own, but when the result of the rape is a child, the sky is the limit on the well being and a bunch of psychological issues.

JetBoy on February 28, 2012 at 8:57 PM

You are right. It is psychological. I wonder, if one could overcome the fact that the child did nothing to hurt the mother. The baby is: half her. Could you live with the fact you did not consent to this? For me, that is easy. I could. For others, I cannot speak for them.
On a side note, in consensual sex, and you didn’t “want” pregnancy, and took all precaution, did you consent to being pregnant? I have no idea. For me, life is life when pregnant. I’m sure others have different opinions.

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Leftists are pure evil.
Liberals are their enablers and useful idiots.

justltl on February 28, 2012 at 9:08 PM

The Western version of Honor Killing.

Bulletchaser on February 28, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Stalin must be laughing in his grave.

Even he must be nodding his head in admiration.

Semantics without ethics is madness.

itsspideyman on February 28, 2012 at 9:12 PM

quote by JetBboy
is either a baby as a result of rape

Why does the innocent baby have to pay for the crime/sin of the biological father?

For the record, I am a woman. I mention my gender only because sometimes a male will leave a comment in these sorts of conversations saying, “As a dad who normally doesn’t support abortion, I would consider it if one of my daughters got pregnant by rape, since it wouldn’t be my place to say no in that case, since I’m a guy and not a gal.”

I’ve seen testimonies by women who gave birth to (and some even raised) the rapist’s baby, and by people who are adults now who were conceived by rape.

TigerPaw on February 28, 2012 at 9:15 PM

after birth abortion ….question …isn’t that called murder

Aggie95 on February 28, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Think about it.
Exactly how twisted does a mind need to be in order to arrive at any justification for killing an infant?

justltl on February 28, 2012 at 9:16 PM

For Jetboy etal An informative web site:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_29.asp

I don’t see how she could!

“Interestingly, the pregnant rape victim’s chief complaint is not that she is unwillingly pregnant, as bad as the experience is. The critical moment is fleeting in this area. It frequently pulls families together like never before. When women are impregnated through rape, their condition is treated in accordance, as are their families.

“We found this experience is forgotten, replaced by remembering the abortion, because it is what they did.” M. Uchtman, Director, Suiciders Anonymous, Report to Cincinnati City Council, Sept. 1, 1981

“In the majority of these cases, the pregnant victim’s problems stem more from the trauma of rape than from the pregnancy itself.”  Mahkorn & Dolan, “Sexual Assault & Pregnancy.” In New Perspectives on Human Abortion, University Publishers of Amer., 1981, pp. 182-199 239

As to what factors make it most difficult to continue her pregnancy, the opinions, attitudes, and beliefs of others were most frequently cited; in other words, how her loved ones treated her. Mahkorn, “Pregnancy & Sexual Assault.” In Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University Publishers of Amer., 1979, pp. 53-72

But many laws would allow for this exception.

That is because many only think of the mother. But we should also think of the baby. Should we kill an innocent unborn baby for the crime of his father? Or let’s look at it this way. Do we punish other criminals by killing their children? Besides, such laws pose major problems in reporting, and also women have been known to report falsely.

FLconservative on February 28, 2012 at 9:18 PM

really, when you speak you don’t use ‘words’? :-)…I rest my case…

jimver on February 28, 2012 at 9:02 PM

In your world, no one makes mistakes. I do say my sentence was horrible. How is this: I do wish I could write as well as I can articulate. :D

Trinityangel on February 28, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Um, you didn’t really respond to what I said. Cutting and pasting what I wrote, and then saying you’ll pass after an insult serves no purpose.

If you care to debate this issue logically, I’m willing to give it a try.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 28, 2012 at 9:01 PM

sorry, i miss read you.
later, I am bailing on this thread.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 9:18 PM

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

Guess there would be a big Demand for this special type of Doctor in DC….. Huh

roflmao

donabernathy on February 28, 2012 at 9:21 PM

This really isn’t that different from abortion. They already thought up partial birth abortion, this would be a difference of mere seconds.

And if you find killing a new born baby repulsive but support abortion, where do you draw the line? When he/she is a month younger? Two months?

Any abortion supporter who is truly consistent would support not only this but also the “abortion” of children who are much older.

Kronos on February 28, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Late to the thread and I’m not going to read all the responses so let me just say this, these people are animals and so are their supporters and defenders. A special place in hell for them all. I did see this article earlier today (Daily Mail UK I think) and it showed photos of the two authors of this article. 1 male 1 female. Both looked no more than 25-30 yrs old and you could see the smuggness on their mugs. I would love to wipe it off for them.

D-fusit on February 28, 2012 at 9:29 PM

The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics today defended his decision to publish an article in which two ethicists advocated “after-birth abortion.” infanticide.

Dr. Josef Mengele the Nazi “Angel of Death” sure could have used these two “ethicists” to justify his actions.

RJL on February 28, 2012 at 8:55 PM

They can call it whatever they want but it’s infanticide and it’s a crime.

Why did they write the article in the first place? To introduce a criminal act (infanticide) as an intellectual discussion to 1 legitimize the subject, and 2 to desensitize the practice, it’s not such a horror if you can discuss it intellectually right? It’s just an abstract idea….. How do they accomplish getting people used to the idea of infanticide if they can’t talk about it in the first place…so here it is wallah.

Are these two so called ethicist, advocating a criminal act? Is there a law against advocating committing murder?

When I stated that it was human instinct, that survival is tied to safety in numbers, I wasn’t being flip. Right now we out number these ghouls. We have fences sitters, that don’t want to appear unsophisticated…yeah cool kills. My point is, those fence sitters are safe, because they are surrounded by a well armed herd of human beings, there is safety in numbers. This human being, isn’t going to be led like a lamb to the slaughter, not to the abortion mills or over time the human furnaces. Can’t happen? It’s an extreme argument? Tell that to Jewish Holocaust survivors.

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Dr Evil on February 28, 2012 at 9:34 PM

So, according to the Journal of Medical Ethics, infanticide is fine, but writing nasty letters is an abomination.

Clearly the physicians of the Nazi regime would have been welcome to publish in this esteemed/ journal.

Are any of these people going to be making decisions on what care is covered by Obamacare?

Anybody concerned about who the government and their infanticide tolerating advocates will be going after in addition to infants? the mentally retarded? the elderly? the demented? Hitler would be so proud.

talkingpoints on February 28, 2012 at 9:34 PM

So I take an ‘ethicist’ is really just a person who sets out to rationalize inhuman, despicable and vile behaviors and desires in an effort to make the most unconscionable thought processes become acceptable.

Midas on February 28, 2012 at 9:36 PM

sorry, i miss read you.
later, I am bailing on this thread.

nathor on February 28, 2012 at 9:18 PM

I meant what I stated above, if comes down to us (human) versus them (learned to walk upright) red rover, red rover send nathor on over LOL!

Dr Evil on February 28, 2012 at 9:39 PM

So I take an ‘ethicist’ is really just a person who sets out to rationalize inhuman, despicable and vile behaviors and desires in an effort to make the most unconscionable thought processes become acceptable.

Midas on February 28, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Yes

Dr Evil on February 28, 2012 at 9:42 PM

The ONLY cases I’d allow for abortion, is either a baby as a result of rape [...]

JetBoy on February 28, 2012 at 8:06 PM

I never understood this line of reasoning. If you believe that a fetus is a person, then what possible difference does it make whether there was rape involved? Abortion is murder, but still it is somehow OK to kill a defenseless baby, provided her father raped her mother? Really?

Time Lord on February 28, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Very clever argument at work here. Agree with the right’s insistence that life begins at conception and then claim it isn’t enough to be alive in order to be permitted to live.

I guess the left realizes that science is ever closer to demonstrating that even early term fetuses are people. Consequently, they say, “so what; that is no longer the criteria”.

Pigilito on February 28, 2012 at 9:59 PM

after birth abortion ….question …isn’t that called murder

Aggie95 on February 28, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! YES!

mechkiller_k on February 28, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Very clever argument at work here. Agree with the right’s insistence that life begins at conception and then claim it isn’t enough to be alive in order to be permitted to live.

I guess the left realizes that science is ever closer to demonstrating that even early term fetuses are people. Consequently, they say, “so what; that is no longer the criteria”.

Pigilito on February 28, 2012 at 9:59 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excellent post, very well-stated!

ellifint on February 28, 2012 at 10:06 PM

I read the original article and find the authors’ arguments compelling.

From the authors:

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.

Hmmm.
I believe that the authors and editor quite likely do not rise to the level of my definition of personhood.
Further, I believe that they constitute not only a burden on society, but an actual threat to society.
In addition, I find them to be quite annoying.
I therefore give the imperial thumbs down.
I’m sure they would accept that judgement with great magnanimity, since it appears to be totally in keeping with their philosophy.

justltl on February 28, 2012 at 10:15 PM

It was a matter of time.

The “partially inside mom = fetus, outside mom = human” argument never worked. Now they don’t need it.

Look for the next issue of the journal, in which ethicists will debate whether being human give Jews the right to live.

jazz_piano on February 28, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

canditaylor68 on February 28, 2012 at 10:19 PM

I’ve made the argument before that if abortion is legal it should then be legal until the child hits 18. No point of only being able to kill the child before it sees daylight. Of course I made it for shock value and snap people into my actual perspective.

I’ve never understood this line of reasoning. If you believe that a fetus is a person, then what possible difference does it make whether there was rape involved?

Well I can give my argument. Contract law. If you willingly have sex then you are signing a contract that says you know the risks and accept them. There isn’t even an undo button possible for some of those risks. If you are forced then although it is a life, you are under no legal obligation to sign it and it’s well within your right to terminate any part of that scum buckets DNA that would otherwise carry on. You also can’t commit suicide so you are under no obligation to carry out the contract if it may result in your death. All signed in triplicate. You might not like it but you can’t help but see the logic.

MechanicalBill on February 28, 2012 at 10:20 PM

“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.”

So they think babies are too stupid to attribute value to their lives?

Try killing one.

Alana on February 28, 2012 at 10:33 PM

It was a matter of time.
The “partially inside mom = fetus, outside mom = human” argument never worked. Now they don’t need it.
Look for the next issue of the journal, in which ethicists will debate whether being human give Jews the right to live.
jazz_piano on February 28, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Exactly! Down with authoritarianism no matter what form it takes! We are close to the point of no return….

Sherman1864 on February 28, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Keep in mind that by publishing this in the Journal of Medical Ethics these worthy gentlemen are creating a pre-existing independent body of authoritative professional literature that will be available to support healthcare rationing decissions in a single payer healthcare system where the single payer will experience severe liquidity and solency pressures.

.

We would do well to recall the publication in the July 1998 issue of the Psychological Bulletin, by psychologists(and homosexual activists) Drs. Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman, of a paper entitled: ” A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples “. The Psychological Bulletin is the premier scientific journal of the American Psychological Association.

Drs. Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman reported that

childhood sexual abuse is only slightly associated with psychological harm, and that harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to negative family factors in the children’s backgrounds. They also reported that “consenting” boys show no evidence of harm and often have positive reactions to sex with adults. Rind et al. concluded that behavior which professionals commonly term “child sexual abuse” may merely constitute a violation of social norms and should be considered “abuse” only if the child reacts negatively to the encounter. They also advocated less judgmental terminology. For example, a “willing encounter with positive reactions” involving a 9-year-old boy and an adult male, would no longer be considered sexual abuse; instead it would simply be called “adult-child sex,” a value neutral term.

Who here today would not want to pillory anyone who would claim the sexual contact between an adult male and a 9-year old boy, pedophilia, would not be profoundly damaging to the child victim. Yet the APA vigorously defended its publication of this meta-study and IMHO concealed that reality that they were building a similar professional body of literature which would inevitabily be used to defend gay pedophiles in court and provide support for efforts to decriminalized pedophilia in the legislative and judical arenas.

.
Dangerous professional literature such as these may well be inevitable in post-Christian secular cultures.

Mike OMalley on February 28, 2012 at 10:36 PM

PSYCHOPATHS.

Saltyron on February 28, 2012 at 10:36 PM

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.

[...]

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Well, on the bright side, they are finally acknowledging that embryos and fetuses are human.

mrsmwp on February 28, 2012 at 10:36 PM

PSYCHOPATHS.

Saltyron on February 28, 2012 at 10:36 PM

.

or maybe sociopaths
.

or maybe just Post-Modern men.

One notable Western democracy started down a similar path in the 1920s and 1930s …

Mike OMalley on February 28, 2012 at 10:40 PM

keep the change on February 28, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Based on the commentary in your post, and your past posting history, I have no need to click on that link (to whatever that video is) in order to conclude that you are a vile, worthless piece of human flesh.

JannyMae on February 28, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Very clever argument at work here. Agree with the right’s insistence that life begins at conception and then claim it isn’t enough to be alive in order to be permitted to live.

I guess the left realizes that science is ever closer to demonstrating that even early term fetuses are people. Consequently, they say, “so what; that is no longer the criteria”.

Pigilito on February 28, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Yep; I expect that within the next twenty years or so, mothers will learn how to begin teaching their child some basic skills while still in the womb.

slickwillie2001 on February 28, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Peter Singer, “bioethicist” at Princeton, has been teaching the value of infanticide for decades.

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993—-.htm

Alana on February 28, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Anyone who’s taken an ethics course at a university is probably familiar with this line of argument. It’s an old argument, and is usually intended to facilitate discussion than to advocate for infanticide.

I’ve actually used it against liberal friends to demonstrate that, if they’re pro-abortion, then theyeg must necessarily be in favor of infanticide.

It’s a useful tool to have in that kind of discussion.

spinach.chin on February 28, 2012 at 11:00 PM

I am stunned. I am angered. In my lifetime I have seen the country go from “the pill” being controversial to medical ethicists advocating infanticide.

So far, only Gingrich has had the clarity to call killing children born after botched abortions infanticide.

Yet this genocide of the innocents increases.

If God judges the US with social, financial and governmental collapse, who will say “But I trusted the government to do the right thing!” even though we all were given consciences and the right to vote for our own leaders?

National repentance is possible, but time is short.

flicker on February 28, 2012 at 11:02 PM

I am a Catholic, and the Church is, was, and will always consider abortion at any stage of life as murder. But my adamant pro-life stance has less to do with religion, and more to do with abortion-on-demand being a human rights issue. If premeditated first degree murder is considered a large enough crime that one can be put away for quite a while, then so should abortion. Plain and simple.

The ONLY cases I’d allow for abortion, is either a baby as a result of rape, or if the mother’s life would be questionable should she have to give birth…C-section or not.

JetBoy on February 28, 2012 at 8:06 PM

wow, you are a hypocritical idiot. How dare you give a baby ‘personhood’ at conception and call it murder- and THEN SAY THAT THE RAPE OF THE MOTHER MAGICALLY MAKES IT OKAY TO MURDER THE LIFE THAT WAS CREATED.

the baby had no say in the manner he was conceived, murder is murder ;rape or not.

also – killing a baby to save the mother is murder- should we kill the 13 year old to give his heart to the mother? by that logic you would save the mother by sacrificing the baby. murder is murder

Donut on February 28, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Also, fwiw, there are those that use this same line of argument to demonstrate that some severely retarded and handicapped people, and even elderly suffering from severe brain ailments, are technically not “people” either.

spinach.chin on February 28, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Yes, spinach at 11:06. Peter Singer argues that very thing about old people and the disabled. (Yet had his own mother well cared for in a home.)

Alana on February 28, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Wow –paragraphs of discussion, debate, discourse. The net result –it’s still some so called “mother’s” dead baby by design. She didn’t give a shit nor did the complicit medical community—the tortured debate is evidence of our decadence–it should be a no brainer–

HatfieldMcCoy on February 28, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4