Medical journalists call for after birth abortions up to the age of THREE!!

OP shut the fuck up. This guy's on your side and you're acting like a little bitch.

this whole issue is probably to cater for birth defects more
than any other issue.


but tis down to the same ol issue

its irrelevant that they consider them people or not.


the act of preventing a life from continuing is what is occurring here on every possible permutation of the situation.

thus gives us the question

does anyone have the right to prevent another life from continuing without punishment?

because that's the question here.

not if its right or wrong.

but can someone choose to prevent another life from continuing and be free of punishment?

currently the law allows for very few instances of this.

one being self defense

what we are asking are there any other reasons this list should be extended to.

I will make a note and if it happens then I will come find you and apologize. Are you prepared to apologize to me for being so rude when you are wrong?

The stupidity here is that someone actually thinks that this could become reality.

Wonder what they would say if I tossed a litter of kittens off a cliff?

There are plenty of countries that already practice killing deformed infants. If it's the parent's choice I can somewhat understand it. There are too many severely retarded and deformed children on literal life support in the foster system because their parents just couldn't handle the weight and the system had the responsibility to step in and keep the feeding tube flowing. Just imagine how much that number will go up with all the Fukushima pixie dust sprinkling down on us.

Half you idiots are acting like this is already happening.

The article is BS. Check out its source. "Page does not exist." I love the rollercoaster for bulimics. That's awesome!

You're confused.



Maybe a "the moon is off" thread would be more your speed?

Do you have any points to make or are you only here to tell me I'm stupid?

On the other hand, save it. You're gonna get what you want.

OP doesn't get satire. ROFLMAO. Dumb little bitch.

It is very difficult to understand the point
when no one is reading the orginal Article!

Please do so, it is for a better understanding!

You haven't been on the internet long, have you?

The detractors are out in FORCE today.

Hit this one hard, I must be onto something.

Thank God most of the posters in this thread get it.

Shill fail!

They don't mention age of three in the paper.

In the conclusion :
"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. "

But still, the extense of the reasons which could be acceptable for "after-birth aborption" is really fucked-up.

You started the name calling here, not me.

Are you under 22 by chance maybe you can be the first candidate for the late term abortion law.

I made my points. This is all complete BS. And if I get what I want we both get the same thing so is that a really a threat?

The article is BS, whiny one!

lol, whine some more. It's what you're good at, dumb one.

Apparently you and the other twit are the only ones who believe that.

Take care.

Calls infants "potential persons".

Both journalists have received death threats after publishing the paper and have removed it from the web.

Just gives you all insight as to how these liberal fucktards think.

Here's the actual paper for all the retards who are too stupid to find things on the internet or calling this satire.

Dummies.

[link to jme.bmj.com]

The one that wrote this needs to be aborted because they hold no real world value.

paper written by students. i dont think it was meant to be taken literally. perhaps it was meant as a shock piece against any abortion. tryingto show people that a baby outside the womb is no different than ababy inside. why are we appalled at the thought of killing one but not appalled at the thought of killing the other. brilliant paper if that was its goal.

NONE!

Good for you, OP! You're still incredibly whiny. And a bit gullible.

I say after birth abortions up too age 95 good for elected officials only

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.

Obama supports infanticide!

Last Edited by AlcoholicRunner on 11/09/2012 09:18 AM

I love that pic!