‘After-Birth’ Abortions the New Choice?

Here we are, folks – we’ve reached the tipping point. Seems brilliant medical ethicists linked to the highly esteemed Oxford University have decided that killing a live-born infant is “no different from abortion.” The eggheads, who obviously have no problem with feticide, have finally concluded: “Parents should be allowed to have their babies killed because newborns are ‘morally irrelevant.'”

A recent article by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics entitled After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live? The article shared the opinion that “newborn babies are not ‘actual persons’ and do not have a ‘moral right to life.'”

These two demonically-inspired minds concluded that what they call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is permissible. What ethicists Guibilini and Minerva are actually describing is an abortion extension. If one misses the chance to dispose of a baby prior to birth, the murder permission slip should still apply after the baby is born.

Taking the legalized horror of abortion a step further, Giubilini and Minerva have come to what they perceive to be a principled conclusion that “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.”

Therefore, babies are still killable after birth because, according to fiends disguised as so-called medical ethicists, “rather than being ‘actual persons,’ newborns are just ‘potential persons.'” The dastardly duo argued that “We take a ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such as that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” That means suffocating or drowning an infant should be able to be done without a hint of struggle from the ‘potential person’ being deprived of air.

Moreover, Guibilini and Minerva stand by the opinion that most people agree that disabled people are ‘less than human’ and certainly without question do not have a right to life.

Thus if by some chance a parent doesn’t know before birth that their offspring is imperfect, once it’s born that parent should certainly be allowed deliver the infant over to death. According to the after-birth abortion authors, only 64% of Down’s syndrome cases are diagnosed prior to delivery, which means 36% of the remaining children should fall into the ‘kill a newborn’ classification.

And therein is the crux of the matter; according to the unethical ethicists, “To bring up [imperfect] children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.” Rest assured, granting Mom and Dad the ‘choice’ to kill a viable human being paves the way in the future for society to make similar ‘choices’ to preserve the common good.

Maybe for their next scholarly article the ethicists could argue on behalf of how the concept of ‘actual persons’ versus ‘potential persons’ could also be applied to the elderly and the infirm and how, in addition to newborn babies, if need be, after-birth abortion could also be administered at any stage of life.

Guibilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, and Minerva, a former research associate with the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, didn’t 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.” In other words, these two are equal opportunity baby killers.

Read more here.

A sneak attack (on our county taxpayers)

Two similar (but not identical, thus not crossfiled) bills have been introduced in the General Assembly this term, measures which would thwart the will of voters in Wicomico County and elsewhere in Maryland.

First among them was SB740, which was introduced February 3 by Senator Richard Madeleno of Montgomery County, which is one of the counties that inhibits property tax collections in some manner. (The others are Anne Arundel, Prince George’s, Talbot, and Wicomico.) It’s a bill which would simply allow counties which have this sort of cap to circumvent it, provided the money goes to the county’s school board.

But HB1412, which was introduced on February 28 – and got the extraordinary benefit of a hearing just two days after introduction – would do grave damage to the financial bottom line of several counties, most particularly Wicomico. It’s notable that Delegate Norm “Five Dollar” Conway is a co-sponsor of the bill, which is led by Delegate John Bohanon of St. Mary’s County and also backed by members from Baltimore City and Baltimore, Howard, and Montgomery counties.

Apparently this will affect Wicomico County in two ways: first of all, their maintenance of effort (MOE) won’t come down to a more realistic level based on tax revenues – for FY2012 they were over $14 million short of the $50 million MOE goal, the largest percentage of any of the state’s 24 counties – and our MOE will likely automatically increase up to 2.5% each year after FY2015 because we’ll almost certainly be considered a “below average” county. At a starting point of $50 million, that’s an extra $1 million we would have to come up with (or roughly 1.5 cents per $100 extra on property tax rates, based on what the county currently receives) annually. That’s also faster than our revenue cap would allow, since it’s based on an increase of no more than two percent.

But the other problem the bill will create is shorting other areas of the county’s budget which depend on the state – according to the fiscal note for HB1412, “(i)f a county does not fully fund MOE and has not received a waiver, the county’s income tax revenues will be intercepted and sent to the school board.” In other words, we lose the local control we have on state funding.

Now some may argue that because the state is providing the funds, they should call the tune. I don’t disagree with that, but if they want to play that game I’d like to see an opt-out provision. Call their bluff: okay, if you want to take away our local control of the money then we don’t want to send you our taxes. Obviously that’s not going to happen anytime soon.

And the problem most people have with the local Board of Education isn’t one of necessity. Few would argue that we don’t need public education as an option.

But there are a lot of us who feel money should follow the child, regardless of where the parents wish to send them to school. By bringing that element of competition into it, schools are forced to improve and provide more bang for the buck. Certainly I’m aware that Wicomico County schools have been studied and found to spend a below-average amount on administrative costs, but it certainly seems to me that the things the Board of Education likes to project as cuts are the ones which provide the greatest shock value. Yet what would our financial situation be like if we simply increased the average class size to 25 students? How much help would that provide?

Read more here.

Unionizing is a Civil Right?

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) president Richard Trumka told The Daily Caller that the right to form a union should “absolutely” be added to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“It should be a right. Everyone should have a right to come together to better their economic lot. … It is a right. The right to have a voice on the job should be every much as strong and as institutionalized as the right to vote and everything else — not to be discriminated against.”

Read more here.

Three Occupy Oakland protesters charged with hate crimes

Three Occupy Oakland protesters accused of surrounding and taunting a woman before stealing her wallet were charged on Friday with robbery and hate crimes, authorities said.

Michael Davis, 32, Nneka Crawford, 23, and Randolph Wilkins, 24, confronted the woman on the streets of Oakland in February after she told them not to riot in her neighborhood, the Oakland Police said in a written release.

“She was surrounded by three protestors and battered as they yelled vulgar epithets regarding their perception of her sexual orientation,” Oakland Police spokeswoman Johnna Watson said.

The female victim was not identified except as a 20-year resident of the neighborhood.

“Her wallet was taken during the crime,” Watson said. “The victim broke away from the group and called police, who were able to arrest one suspect near the scene.”

Watson said the other two suspects were arrested at a February 29 Occupy Oakland protest.

Each was charged by the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office with felony counts of robbery and hate crimes, Watson said.

An Occupy Oakland organizer could not be reached for comment on Friday evening.

Read more here.

%d bloggers like this: