Okay nothing to do with guns but this blew my mind

[Riposite]

..and it blew my mind not in a good way

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/0 ... 00411.full

"Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue 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."


to me this is the first step down the road to eugneics and is the natural consequence of cheapening of human life by arguing over where it begins...
whether or not you are pro or con with regards to abortion- now the thinking is starting that they can push the line out further


here is the the line that sums up their position i think:

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


scary stuff

[dorminWS]

If you buy the Roe v. Wade line that the state has an insufficiently compelling interest in the life of a fetus to give it a right to protect that fetus' life, then I guess this is the next slide down the slippery slope.

[ratherfish]

The most dangerous place for a child in America is in it's mother's womb.

The progressives have been pushing for eugenics for 75 years. It's the old frog in the pot plan, slowly chipping away at the morals of this country till murder is justified. Both of the born and the unborn.

[dorminWS]

The most dangerous place for a child in America is in it's mother's womb.

The progressives have been pushing for eugenics for 75 years. It's the old frog in the pot plan, slowly chipping away at the morals of this country till murder is justified. Both of the born and the unborn.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Actually, the dude that wrote FREAKONOMICS stirred up quite a controversy when he suggested that Roe v. Wade was responsible for the drop in violent crime in the late 80s and 90s and thereafter. His assertion was that a lot of minority women had abortions instead of bringing babies into a single-parent, poverty-stricken home where they would have been much more likely to commit such crimes. So I guess you could argue that if that were true, it was de facto eugenics. But of course, the liberals heaped he most scathing scorn and opprobrium upon him. They were scandalized. NOT, I suspect, because the babies were aborted, but because they were offended by the notion that many of them would have been criminals if born and that some arguable benefit to society therefore resulted from their (elimination? termination? murder?).

[Kreutz]

Gotta read it with an open mind. Its a very tongue in cheek critique of the pro-abortion claim its not murder.

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

Its a criticism of the ethics of abortion, not a proposal to expand it.

If we really were to accept the pro-abortion lobbies claim a fetus is just a collection of tissue and cells, well why not murder people after they're born since theyre still just a collection of tissue and cells?

Its the logical conclusion of the pro-abortion argument, which the authors have parodied in this article.

[ratherfish]

I disagree. In their conclusion they propose a moral justification for infanticide;

"Two considerations need to be added.

First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford. "

Now we wait for their definition of "disease" and "undearable burden".

Two things that have justified eugenics thoughout history. The premice and conclusions of this article are morally void and repugnant.

[dorminWS]

Gotta read it with an open mind. Its a very tongue in cheek critique of the pro-abortion claim its not murder.

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

Its a criticism of the ethics of abortion, not a proposal to expand it.

If we really were to accept the pro-abortion lobbies claim a fetus is just a collection of tissue and cells, well why not murder people after they're born since theyre still just a collection of tissue and cells?

Its the logical conclusion of the pro-abortion argument, which the authors have parodied in this article.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The same argument has been made about capital punishment; but I think in that case they used the phrase "post-partum abortion". But it seems to me that capital punishment is less objectionable and more legitimate than abortion; because we passed a statute through the legislative process making an honest societal judgment that capital murder is one case in which we will sanction the artificial termination of human life. In the case of abortion, we allowed activist judges to engage in thegross intellectual dishonesty of the Roe v. Wade decision. If Virginia legislatively sanctioned first trimester abortions after a full, open and honest debate, I could live with it even though I don't agree with it.

[Kreutz]

The same argument has been made about capital punishment; but I think in that case they used the phrase "post-partum abortion". But it seems to me that capital punishment is less objectionable and more legitimate than abortion; because we passed a statute through the legislative process making an honest societal judgment that capital murder is one case in which we will sanction the artificial termination of human life. In the case of abortion, we allowed activist judges to engage in thegross intellectual dishonesty of the Roe v. Wade decision. If Virginia legislatively sanctioned first trimester abortions after a full, open and honest debate, I could live with it even though I don't agree with it.

yeah, its an explosive issue, thats for sure. Drives people nuts. Saw a picture of some women rights types protesting that transvag ultrasound/personhood amendment in Richmond getting dragged off by cops, man, they looked ready to kill. (no pun intended).

I agree capital punishment is less objectionable since society can at least claim the executed "deserved" it, can't really formulate that argument with a baby. Then of course you get into the possibility of the wrongfully convicted and its back to square one.

Its worth noting overturning Roe V Wade actually doesn't re-criminalize abortion, just kicks it back to the states. IIRC California has a provision in its constitution in the event Roe is overturned abortions are to be forever legal in their state. In reality overturning Roe would just create "abortion destination" states. Of course, that means the SC has to disagree with itself, which has happened what, once? When it overturned Scott v Sanford?

The whole issue is a mess for obvious reasons. I trend towards pro-life personally but am pro-choice in the sense people have free will and thats just the way it is regardless of laws.

[ratherfish]

The supreme court has found that simple rape without other criminal findings (such as murder) is NOT sufficient to justify capitol punishment of the criminal.

So as a society we would NOT put some of the MOST GUILTY in our midst to death for their crime, but readily put the MOST INNOCENT to death without hesitation.

It is morally unjustifiable.

This article pushes the imoral even firther to clearly justifying more murder of the most innocent in human kind.

The guilty are punished for their crime, the innocent are murdered for no crime what so ever.

[mamabearCali]

When the most vulnerable and innocent among are able to be brutally murdered under color of law none of us are safe. What a slippery slope we are on.

[Wallace]

Weird how the Incas/Aztecs are/were called barbarians because of their pagan human sacrifice rituals. An off the wall theory could suggest abortion is just a modern version of human sacrifice, and those that have made it legal and continue to support it may think of it as such.

Add that crazy story about Pepsi doing business with a company that uses kidney cells from aborted babies to produce flavor enhancers, and you have a really creepy mess. How do they even GET kidney cells from aborted babies?

[mamabearCali]

Yeah, I heard about that....I really don't know how true it is. If anyone knows of a good source to prove or disprove this it would be a boon to me and mine.

But the thought of it grossed me out so much I can't bring myself to buy pepsi products until I know for sure it isn't. I love Pepsi, too, been a loyal pepsi products customer since I had allowance money to buy it at school, but they are using a fetal kidney cell line I can't bring myself to drink it.

[mk4]

Here's an overview: http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherp ... ntroversy/

About 2/3 down page one is link to the scientific paper describing the cell line in question, and its creation in the mid-70s.

Pepsi and other companies either contract with other companies, or use the cells internally for R&D purposes. It doesn't read like they're used in any production processes.

[mamabearCali]

Ok that really stinks for me cause I am rather hard nosed on pro-life issues, especially in my personal life. it does not matter in my morality if the child whose cells are used in food was murdered yesterday or 40 years. I still don't ingest people in any way shape or form, not knowingly anyway. Honestly I would find it morally questionable if it was harvested from a human that willingly gave a kidney sample, so the fact that it is from an aborted child just makes a bad situation worse.

Why oh Why pepsi did you have to use this particular flavoring additive. I loved your flavors so much more than the competition.

[mk4]

I read the article and paper. Also did some add'l searching on the cell line.

To be clear, there are no cells in the drink. Nor any substances created by the cells. I do applaud your personal philosophical and ethic purity, though. It's not always easy to hold the line.

Keep in mind that most modern medicines for everything from cancer to diabetes to heart disease are developed using cultured cells with animal and human origin. It's a dilemma for some folks. Others, no so much.

Peace.

[dorminWS]

Ok that really stinks for me cause I am rather hard nosed on pro-life issues, especially in my personal life. it does not matter in my morality if the child whose cells are used in food was murdered yesterday or 40 years. I still don't ingest people in any way shape or form, not knowingly anyway. Honestly I would find it morally questionable if it was harvested from a human that willingly gave a kidney sample, so the fact that it is from an aborted child just makes a bad situation worse.

Why oh Why pepsi did you have to use this particular flavoring additive. I loved your flavors so much more than the competition.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I know some folks, and I'm checking on this. I heard something once, and can't remember what it was. But in the meantime, I guess you're gonna have to go to drinking springwater, because you don't seem to have much choice. I found the following sentence in the article linked by the OP: "Synomyx has announced collaborations with Pepsi, Nestle, and Coca-Cola." That not only rules out coke and pepsi for you, but you're gonna have to quit one of the most common brands of water AND chocolate.

[dorminWS]

Ok that really stinks for me cause I am rather hard nosed on pro-life issues, especially in my personal life. it does not matter in my morality if the child whose cells are used in food was murdered yesterday or 40 years. I still don't ingest people in any way shape or form, not knowingly anyway. Honestly I would find it morally questionable if it was harvested from a human that willingly gave a kidney sample, so the fact that it is from an aborted child just makes a bad situation worse.

Why oh Why pepsi did you have to use this particular flavoring additive. I loved your flavors so much more than the competition.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I know some folks, and I'm checking on this. I heard something once, and can't remember what it was. But in the meantime, I guess you're gonna have to go to drinking springwater, because you don't seem to have much choice. I found the following sentence in the article linked by the OP: "Synomyx has announced collaborations with Pepsi, Nestle, and Coca-Cola." That not only rules out coke and pepsi for you, but you're gonna have to quit one of the most common brands of water AND chocolate.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The following statement was made to a certain group inside the pepsi organization back in December 2011:

"while Senomyx uses fetal cells in research, that research is wholly unrelated to what they are doing for PepsiCo"

It all boils down to who you're willing to believe.

I believe it is at least as likely the pro-life organizations involved in this boycott effort have gone off half-cocked as it is that PepsiCo is prevaricating. But then, you also have to decide whether to pay any attention to what I say, too.

[Kreutz]

Its not just pepsi, I only recently learned some vaccines are cultured from aborted embryo cell lines. I researched it to make sure it wasn't another Internet rumor and was surprised to learn its true. I was taught vaccines were cultivated in chicken eggs, but turns out thats most of them, not all.

Vaccines Grown on Aborted Fetal Tissue
The following vaccines are grown on aborted fetal tissue - rabies, some mumps, rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis a, smallpox (some), ipv. One of the single measles vaccines is further attenuated in diploid cells

This can be seen in the package inserts - referred to as diploid cells

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/abortedtissue.htm

[Wallace]

Its not just pepsi, I only recently learned some vaccines are cultured from aborted embryo cell lines. I researched it to make sure it wasn't another Internet rumor and was surprised to learn its true. I was taught vaccines were cultivated in chicken eggs, but turns out thats most of them, not all.

Vaccines Grown on Aborted Fetal Tissue
The following vaccines are grown on aborted fetal tissue - rabies, some mumps, rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis a, smallpox (some), ipv. One of the single measles vaccines is further attenuated in diploid cells

This can be seen in the package inserts - referred to as diploid cells

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/abortedtissue.htm

Regardless of the use, how in the world do they acquire aborted fetal tissue? Who sells it? Does the government regulate it?
Even if the cells are not actually IN the product, but still admit to using them in any fashion, isnt that just a little strange?

[mamabearCali]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I know some folks, and I'm checking on this. I heard something once, and can't remember what it was. But in the meantime, I guess you're gonna have to go to drinking springwater, because you don't seem to have much choice. I found the following sentence in the article linked by the OP: "Synomyx has announced collaborations with Pepsi, Nestle, and Coca-Cola." That not only rules out coke and pepsi for you, but you're gonna have to quit one of the most common brands of water AND chocolate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The following statement was made to a certain group inside the pepsi organization back in December 2011:

"while Senomyx uses fetal cells in research, that research is wholly unrelated to what they are doing for PepsiCo"

It all boils down to who you're willing to believe.

I believe it is at least as likely the pro-life organizations involved in this boycott effort have gone off half-cocked as it is that PepsiCo is prevaricating. But then, you also have to decide whether to pay any attention to what I say, too.

If it turns out that Pepsi co is only doing business with a company that works with these cell lines then I am ok with that. However I shall wait and see on this, because it is a rather big deal to me.

On the vaccines I did know about that. This is a personal thing, but it is one of the reasons we do very few vaccines. Our family has a well documented allergy (deadly serious) to one set of vaccines and the other set are cultivated in human diploid cells--a no no in my house. Scary, but those are the breaks.