I found this story while I was nursing the pixie to sleep this evening, and had to stop reading it, because it almost made me throw up on her. I cannot fathom the twisted mental processes behind the theory advanced by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, that newborns are not "persons," and killing them should not be considered more than just a very late-term abortion.
I will admit it: I am emotionally charged by this story. I have two children, both of whom had pretty definite personalities long before they were born. I am not able to address this idea rationally. So, I will address it, probably with a lot of foul language, with as much reasoning as the idea deserves: none.
Okay, first point: the two disgusting extrusions from the diseased, apparently mentally deficient individuals who were obviously incapable of teaching their spawn the difference between right and wrong apparently have a vague understanding that the rest of the world do grasp the simple concepts, because they prefer the term "after-birth abortion" over "infanticide."
Of course they do! I doubt they're uncomfortable with the concept embodied by the term "infanticide" since that's what they're advocating--but I'm pretty sure they're uncomfortable with the idea of what those of us who can tell right from wrong would like to do to them. I wouldn't suggest hanging was too good for most people, but for these two? Too easy.
From the article:
The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborn's.Ah, honesty. It's never the baby's best interest that matters. The baby isn't a person, you see.
Then again, I'd argue that the newborn that hasn't fully emerged and taken its first lungful of air is more a person than these two extrusions of diseased whores.
The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”So...cases of mental retardation are circumstances where infanticide are okay...how about committing "after birth abortion" on a retarded adult? Is that also acceptable? Who defines it? Can I? Please? 'Cause these two cuntfarts would be top of the lists.
In the authors' own words:
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.Well, I wouldn't necessarily call the two twatfungi "human," but let's give them the benefit of the doubt. They're still advocating murder. Not just any murder, but murder of individuals who literally have not done anything wrong. That, right there, revokes their "right to life," should they attempt to act on their theories, just as it does any individual who plans and carries out a murder of another individual in cold blood.
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.
These two perverted mucus clots also say
...as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.Right...like causing the murder of the baby she just gave birth to is going to leave a woman less psychologically traumatized than imagining the child growing up loved an happy.
So...how old does a baby have to be before these cuntstains consider them "people"? How long after the baby takes its first breath can its family take it somewhere to have it murdered? Well...they're not sure, but that's not the point.
Again, I say, fine: we can go with their theory. How do we define "personhood"? If we let these two...fine individuals...define it, no child under the age of about six months is a person. If the Catholic church is allowed to define it, the baby is a person before sperm and egg are joined.
How 'bout we just let me define it? Anyone who thinks murdering a helpless, innocent baby--especially one that's already breathing, eating, excreting, smiling, growing, and learning to love its family--is morally acceptable isn't a person. If that's the case, I'm all for the "abortion" of these creeps, starting with the two that advanced the theory.
After all, it's pretty obvious to me that the best part of their daddies' gift to their mommies ran down the cracks of their asses and landed on the bed. Assuming the morally deficient, mentally diseased, canyon-cunted, mattress-backed, dock-side whores that birthed them didn't actually take the injection in the wrong hole to begin with.
Actually, come to think of it, that would explain a lot.