GSH
03-03-2012, 01:51 PM
The problem with birth control, even free birth control, is that it's so damned hard to remember to take the pills. We all know that accidents happen, and it's not fair for anyone to have to live with the consequences of an honest mistake. Well, now there's hope:
In a follow-up to his recent edict requiring all insurance plans to provide free birth control, President Obama declared today that insurance coverage must also include postnatal birth control. "It's a woman's health issue," he said in a brief press conference. He cited a recent conversation with a new mother in Baltimore, who told him "The little bastard cries all night, and I am just exhausted." He went on to say that there will be a time for public comments and objections, which ended last month.
(Okay, I made that part up. But is it really any more absurd than the real story below? If you think this story was taken out of context, or is simply hypothetical, think again. It's deadly serious. Read the whole thing at the link below. And while you're at it, pay attention to the people involved, and what they do for a living.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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 has 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, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre 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 Prof 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’.
----------
Read the rest of the article at the link, above. You have to admire the logic, huh? What do you think - should it be extended to their 18th birthday? Come to think of it, I know some people in their 30's and 40's who I don't think have a "moral right to life". I wonder if I could get a note from their mothers?
In a follow-up to his recent edict requiring all insurance plans to provide free birth control, President Obama declared today that insurance coverage must also include postnatal birth control. "It's a woman's health issue," he said in a brief press conference. He cited a recent conversation with a new mother in Baltimore, who told him "The little bastard cries all night, and I am just exhausted." He went on to say that there will be a time for public comments and objections, which ended last month.
(Okay, I made that part up. But is it really any more absurd than the real story below? If you think this story was taken out of context, or is simply hypothetical, think again. It's deadly serious. Read the whole thing at the link below. And while you're at it, pay attention to the people involved, and what they do for a living.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
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 has 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, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre 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 Prof 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’.
----------
Read the rest of the article at the link, above. You have to admire the logic, huh? What do you think - should it be extended to their 18th birthday? Come to think of it, I know some people in their 30's and 40's who I don't think have a "moral right to life". I wonder if I could get a note from their mothers?