Home · Maps · About
Home > OTChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

(919277)

view threaded

Medical "ethicists": Newborn babies "morally irrelevant"; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 13 01:18:52 2012

Slippery slope of increasing downgrade . . . ?

Daily Telegraph

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent
1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University have argued.

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, Professor Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Center 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 Professor 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 percent 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 practiced.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasize 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 Center for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Center 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 Professor 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. Professor Savulescu worked at both universities before moving to Oxford in 2002.

Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Professor Savulescu said that arguments in favor 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.

Doctor 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 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.”
(919301)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Edwards! on Tue Mar 13 06:34:12 2012, in response to Medical "ethicists": Newborn babies "morally irrelevant"; killing them no different from abortion, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 13 01:18:52 2012.

So..it truly begins.

When these "people" think it..somewhere down the line,they DO IT..

Guess that "plan" of eliminating us down to 500,000 or so is in the works by some "liberal thinkers"..

(919304)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Edwards! on Tue Mar 13 06:42:18 2012, in response to Medical "ethicists": Newborn babies "morally irrelevant"; killing them no different from abortion, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 13 01:18:52 2012.

So..it truly begins.

When these "people" think it..somewhere down the line,they DO IT..

Guess that "plan" of eliminating us down to 500,000,000 or so is in the works by some "liberal thinkers"..

The laughable,yet appalling quote here is,-"..it is to present a WELL REASONED argument based on WIDELY ACCEPTED PREMISES.."..

Well if a child has a mole on its left ear or not the right complexion,or even cries too much..i guess that's as good a reason if any to kill "it"..right?

wonder what they would think if they found out the mother was given the same choice..yet allowed them to live?

(919305)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Mar 13 06:47:04 2012, in response to Medical "ethicists": Newborn babies "morally irrelevant"; killing them no different from abortion, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 13 01:18:52 2012.

The problem is we don't perform enough abortions.

(919308)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Edwards! on Tue Mar 13 06:58:34 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Mar 13 06:47:04 2012.

it is morally wrong[in my opinion..] to take a life..from the womb or anytime.

(919319)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by orange blossom special on Tue Mar 13 07:50:11 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by Edwards! on Tue Mar 13 06:42:18 2012.

Illinois had one state senator who was really for it.
He is now 'my president'.

(919320)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Mar 13 07:51:53 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by Edwards! on Tue Mar 13 06:42:18 2012.

It was only a matter of time till it got to this point.

(919325)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by AlM on Tue Mar 13 08:47:26 2012, in response to Medical "ethicists": Newborn babies "morally irrelevant"; killing them no different from abortion, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 13 01:18:52 2012.

Repost.

Fringe lunatics.

(919326)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by AlM on Tue Mar 13 08:48:32 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Mar 13 07:51:53 2012.

This is nothing new. As Spider-Pig pointed out in the original thread, it used to be a lot more respectable a view than it is now.
(919327)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by dand124 on Tue Mar 13 09:08:06 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by AlM on Tue Mar 13 08:47:26 2012.

Oxford University is not fringe.

(919331)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by AlM on Tue Mar 13 09:18:28 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by dand124 on Tue Mar 13 09:08:06 2012.

But these guys are.

Support of infanticide is simply not a respectable opinion in most circles, even if held by an Oxford professor.

(919341)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 13 10:26:19 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by AlM on Tue Mar 13 08:47:26 2012.

Today's fringe is tomorrow's mainstream.

(919347)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by AlM on Tue Mar 13 10:49:08 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 13 10:26:19 2012.

Not in this case.

Consider how popular eugenics was in the 1930s.

Some fringe ideas rightly never catch on.

Consider even how outraged everyone was 30 years ago that assisted suicide was going to turn into massive euthanasia. The idea is still there, but it still has very limited use.

Both the doomsday forecasters (the word is falling to pieces morally) and the utopians (we're going to fix all our problems) have been at it for centuries and they are both repeatedly proven wrong.
(919352)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 13 11:28:51 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Mar 13 06:47:04 2012.

That's ridiculous.

I'd say that our abortion culture is what's pushing us towards WWIII.

(919361)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 13 12:59:12 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by AlM on Tue Mar 13 10:49:08 2012.

Consider how popular eugenics was in the 1930s.

But when it became associated with Hitler, its appeal ebbed.
(919362)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Fred G on Tue Mar 13 13:19:55 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 13 11:28:51 2012.

LOL!

your pal,
Fred

(919369)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Mar 13 14:06:32 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by Fred G on Tue Mar 13 13:19:55 2012.

+1 LOL!

(919380)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 13 15:05:52 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 13 12:59:12 2012.

Looks like it's coming back, doesn't it?

(919398)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 13 16:20:48 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 13 15:05:52 2012.

Well, talking about "slippery slope," people say they're afraid of Rowe v. Wade being overturned. But compared to where we are now Rowe v. Wade was a law picture of moderation. IIRC it said states could not ban abortion in the first trimester; it could restrict it in the second; and it could ban it outright in the third.

And look where we are now.

(919402)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Rockparkman on Tue Mar 13 16:38:08 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 13 16:20:48 2012.

Good. maybe we can destroy the Nazi church.

(919410)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by SMAZ on Tue Mar 13 17:11:55 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by SLRT on Tue Mar 13 16:20:48 2012.

And look where we are now

where are we now?

(919413)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Mar 13 17:24:28 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 13 11:28:51 2012.

Nah ... it's reactionaries who believe it's either their way or we'll kill you.

(919417)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Rockparkman on Tue Mar 13 17:37:54 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 13 11:28:51 2012.

No. It's chess playing doofuses like you who think international relations are black and white issues.

(919429)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 13 18:17:40 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by Rockparkman on Tue Mar 13 17:37:54 2012.

Confused again today?

(919430)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 13 18:18:11 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by Rockparkman on Tue Mar 13 16:38:08 2012.

You mean the one you go to?

(919637)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by SLRT on Wed Mar 14 06:29:16 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by SMAZ on Tue Mar 13 17:11:55 2012.

Where abortion is demanded up to the point of birth, and now some are sniffing at the fourth trimester.

(919638)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by SMAZ on Wed Mar 14 06:36:33 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by SLRT on Wed Mar 14 06:29:16 2012.

Where is such a thing ever demanded other than if the life of the mother is in danger?

(919647)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by SLRT on Wed Mar 14 07:39:49 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by SMAZ on Wed Mar 14 06:36:33 2012.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.html">http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.html

Now I expect you will note that this compendium is from a right-to-life organization. But they give sources and references. Are you saying these are all lies?

Now where are your statistics that late term abortions are only [your assertion] for the life of the mother?
(919650)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 14 07:54:24 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by SLRT on Wed Mar 14 06:29:16 2012.

A fourth trimester?

your pal,
Fred

(919651)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 14 07:55:11 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 14 07:54:24 2012.

Yes, he was obviously talking about after birth if you don't like something that's wrong with the child.

(919655)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 14 08:07:04 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 14 07:55:11 2012.

I presumed as much, but was mocking the use of a 4th part of something with 3 parts.

your pal,
Fred

(919656)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 14 08:16:58 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 14 08:07:04 2012.

I think he said it that way too because abortion seems to now mean a baby after birth with some sort of defect.

(919661)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by SLRT on Wed Mar 14 09:11:47 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Mar 14 08:16:58 2012.

It's called poetic license to make a point.

(919665)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by AlM on Wed Mar 14 10:51:50 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by SLRT on Wed Mar 14 07:39:49 2012.

My employer blocks your site. Roe v Wade says that abortions are permitted as long as the fetus would not be viable outside the uterus. That is a criterion that makes lots of people uncomfortable.

However, the vast majority of abortions are during the first trimester. Of the ones that aren't most are during the first half of the second trimester. Later than 20 weeks is incredibly unusual.
(919672)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by bingbong on Wed Mar 14 12:05:56 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by AlM on Wed Mar 14 10:51:50 2012.

...most later term abortions are for medical reasons. For that reason they too should be left alone.

(919693)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by SLRT on Wed Mar 14 13:51:20 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by bingbong on Wed Mar 14 12:05:56 2012.

Okay, but are you saying that late term abortions NOT for medical reasons "should be left alone" too?

And "medical reasons," which can include anxiety or stress, can be a far cry from SMAZ's "the life of the mother is in danger."

Mind you, I am (like most Americans, I think) both Pro-Choice (it is often an important social necessity) and Pro-Life (there is no moral choice if you can't draw a line, which is the subject of this thread).

(919698)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Mar 14 14:02:22 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by SLRT on Wed Mar 14 13:51:20 2012.

I don't consider that to be "pro-life."

(919699)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Mar 14 14:03:10 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 14 07:54:24 2012.

Remember improper fractions in math?

(919704)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by bingbong on Wed Mar 14 14:16:22 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by SLRT on Wed Mar 14 13:51:20 2012.

How does allowing later-term abortions for medical reasons include those as a matter of choice?

Fact is, most abortions are performed in the first trimester. That must be left alone. From the moment of fetal viability (ability to breathe on its own, take nutrition and have an EEG) only health issues justify abortions. Health issues, medically defined, are quantifiable.

(919711)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by SLRT on Wed Mar 14 14:44:41 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Mar 14 14:02:22 2012.

Well, a majority of Americans seem to describe themselves now as pro-life, and a majority would allow abortions in some circumstances not others, so what term would you use for people who believe abortion should be allowed but not always?

(919713)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Mar 14 14:56:58 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by SLRT on Wed Mar 14 14:44:41 2012.

Limited pro-choice.

(920022)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 15 08:03:36 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by SLRT on Wed Mar 14 09:11:47 2012.

Of course. Lately when the leftists don't have any way to argue a point taken, they have to either attack personally, or if not, criticize, spelling, grammar, or in this case literal meaning.

(920028)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by SLRT on Thu Mar 15 08:34:35 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 15 08:03:36 2012.

I know Fred likes to tease me, because he's my pal.

His Pal,
SLRT

(920357)

view threaded

Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion

Posted by Edwards! on Fri Mar 16 00:55:25 2012, in response to Re: Medical ''ethicists'': Newborn babies ''morally irrelevant''; killing them no different from abortion, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Mar 13 07:51:53 2012.

Thats the sickening part..that this is SERIOUSLY BEING ENTERTAINED..

We are talking about a BABY..not a random piece of meat you can just throw away when you dont want it!

Dammit,man..!
murderous scum...


[ Return to the Message Index ]