Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Let's start the "after birth abortions" with those who have no FUCKING SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG!!!

Warning: strong opinions and stronger language ahead.

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.


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

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.


  1. Replies
    1. TCA, this is just the start.... you ain't seen nuttin yet.

  2. We knew it would. It always cycles back around to murdering the babies.

    1. Yes, it's pre WW2 in Germany again.

      It's called Fascism.

      This is how it starts, setting up some BS argument to allow them to murder those "they" deem fit not to live. But it won't stop with the babies. Very soon, it'll be those who for what ever reason are mentally less than 100%. Then those who are less than 100% physically. Then Jews and Christians..... the persecution here has has drastically picked up in the last year if you've been watching the news.

    2. Here's a link to back up what I said.


      Here's quote:

      “Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers (emphasis added) may be necessary in order to do so.” "An important distinction. It’s one thing to end growth. It’s quite another thing to reduce current human numbers."

      This time they're not out to make the "master race". The elites already believe they are the "master race". Now they're out to "save the planet" from the evil human scourge that infects the planet.

      I hate to sound all conspiratorial, but when you smell the BS this badly, you can't ignore it.

    3. 'There are hidden contradictions within the minds of people who “love nature” while deploring the “artificialities” with which “Man has spoiled ‘Nature.” The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of “Nature”--but beavers and their damns are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver damn (erected by beavers for beaver’s purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purpose of men) the “Naturist” reveals his hatred for his own race--i.e., his own self-hatred. In the case of “Naturists” such self—hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate. As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. Sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women-- it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly “natural.”' --Robert A. Heinlein

  3. Maybe it's time to perform retroactive abortions on these clowns.


    1. I agree with you you completely on that suggestion, Vilmar. I may border on being a sociopath, but even I know that what they're suggesting is completely, appallingly wrong.

  4. Kids are taught these kind of values in school and we wonder why they kill each other. If's OK to kill a little baby then at some point when someone becomes 'not viable' or a burden to society because they are old or injured we can bump them off also, actually that might be in the health care bill.

    1. Close friends of mind (who have left the area) were expecting a baby--BUT it was determined early on, that the baby had a rare autism problem that has a 10% survival rate--unfortunately, the survival rate CAN NOT be determined until the actual birth of the baby.

      Their baby died at birth.

      Very tragic for a woman to carry a baby for 9 months with a only a 10% survival rate.

    2. Duke, the government is creating a generation of sociopaths--dumb ones that can't function within society even if they tried (but they're so dumb that they don't see the point in trying). And then, they wonder why everything is falling apart.

      OCM--your friends definitely have my sympathy. And I never said there weren't rare cases where abortion wasn't as wrong: I heard about a woman who had a fibroid tumor in her uterus and didn't know about it until her baby got caught under it, and was being crushed slowly and painfully--and would be dead long before it could be rescued. Cases like that...well, there's no good option, there, and I'd rather my baby had less pain and a quicker death, were it me.

  5. Then, the next thing, they'll start lobbying for "ending" someone's "personhood" after a certain age: "Aw, Bill: you're 80. You've had a good run. Why not finish off your life and make room for someone else?"

    You know, I was just wondering this morning (in light of the newest school shooting) why we seem to be seeing more of these...possibly the being-taught-not-to-value-life is the key.

    1. That is exactly the key, ricki. Sad to say, I tend not to value a lot of adults--too many have proved themselves wastes of space. Children and babies, on the other hand...they haven't hurt anyone, and they have so much potential to be so much better than the generation that's working so hard to screw all of us over.

    2. Anyone who has held a baby knows they're a person. These two are either sadistically evil or are just saying crap to get published.

    3. I'd vote sadistically evil, dumb as fucking boxes of rocks if they think the rest of us don't see that, and unable to get their jollies without fantasizing about killing innocents.


Sorry, folks. A hundred plus spam comments in an hour equals moderation, so until further notice...you're gonna have to wait for your comments to be approved before they show up.