Tag Archives: infanticide

Justice served? California woman who tried to drown newborn in McDonald’s restroom gets probation

Baby mama Lockner “didn’t know” she was pregnant/San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office photo

From Fox News: A California woman accused of trying to drown her newborn in a McDonald’s restroom avoided jail time last week after striking a plea deal with prosecutors and pleading no contest to felony child endangerment.

Sarah Jane Lockner, 27, received four years of supervised probation and was ordered to take parenting classes. SFGate reported, citing court documents. Lockner reportedly agreed to the plea deal in January. She was originally charged with attempted murder.

Lockner was in the middle of a shift at a McDonald’s in Redwood City in the Bay Area in September 2017 when she was complaining of stomach pains, according to the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office. When her fellow employees noticed she was trailing blood, Lockner told them she had a “heavy period.”

A co-worker went to check on Lockner in the restroom and allegedly discovered Lockner with the newborn’s head face-down in a toilet bowl, according to prosecutors. Lockner reportedly told the co-worker not to call police, but the co-worker did anyway, according to the Mercury News of San Jose.

Responding officers found the baby not breathing and without a pulse, the newspaper reported. The baby was rushed to a hospital and survived. The child is reportedly staying with the father’s aunt.

It wasn’t the first time this had happened to Lockner, according to prosecutors. She had given birth to another child in a restroom at home three years prior to the McDonald’s birth, prosecutors said. Lockner said both times that she didn’t know she was pregnant.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

A haunting poem: The brutal reality of an abortion

This is specifically for you Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Ethics philosophers argue for ‘after-birth abortion’ of babies

We were warned about the slippery slope of legalizing abortion.

Legalizing abortion has already led to legalizing euthanasia, euphemistically called “physician-assisted suicide”.

The latest in the slippery slope is a call for infanticide.

In an article, “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?,” published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics, two philosophers propose that mothers should have the right to kill their newborn, which the two philosophers call “after-birth abortion”. The two authors are:

  • Alberto Giubilini, who was at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, Australia, and is now a post-doctoral research fellow at the Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, England.
  • Francesca Minerva, who was at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Australia, and is now a post-doc research fellow at the University of Ghent, Belgium.

Here is the article’s 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.

The authors begin their article by arguing that “the same conditions that would have justified abortion,” such as Down’s syndrome and other severe mental and/or physical impairments, should also be “applied to killing a newborn human” because “children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.”

But the authors then go further, arguing that even if severely disabled children are happy, they should be “aborted” after birth because of the problems they create for the mothers and for society:

[H]aving a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children,1 regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself….

[T]o bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

Playing word games, the authors say they eschew calling “after-birth abortion” either “infanticide” or “euthanasia” because “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,” and 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.”

In short, the authors justify “after-birth abortion” on the grounds that the newborn infant is just like the unborn fetus in that “neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense” because neither has “the potentiality to become a person” in the sense of forming any future aims.

By “person” the authors 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.”

By that definition, “many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons,” but newborns and fetuses are not persons because they “are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence”. At best, newborns and fetuses are only “potential persons”, which means that the interests of “actual people” (parents, family, society), no matter how weak their interests, always “over-ride” the interest of “merely potential people”. The latter “cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence” because the interest of non-persons “amounts to zero”.

Giublini and Minerva even argue against adoption of unwanted newborns if the mothers could be “damaged” by giving up their newborns for adoption.

The authors do allow that since newborns and fetuses are “only capable of experiencing pain and pleasure,” they “have a right not to be inflicted pain.”

How humane and generous of Giubilini and Minerva. /Sarc

As to how old a newborn would be when killing him/her is no longer “permissible”, Giublini and Minerva refuse to specify. Instead, they leave the cut-off threshold open-ended. In their words:

[W]e 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.

You can read their short article here.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, a professor of practical ethics at the University of Oxford, said the article had “elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety”. He said some of comments included:

“These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society.”

“Right now I think these two devils in human skin need to be delivered for immediate execution under their code of ‘after birth abortions’ they want to commit murder – that is all it is! MURDER!!!”

“The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier”

“Alberto Giubilini looks like a muslim so I have to agree with him that all muslims should have been aborted. If abortion fails, no life at birth – just like he wants.”

Savulescu defended Giubilini and Minerva on the grounds that their arguments are not new and in the interest of academic freedom. He said:

“The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide … but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands…. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

See also “Celebrated moral philosopher Peter Singer: It’s okay to rape the mentally disabled”.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Hillary The Devil

Today President Trump struck down the infamous Johnson Amendment, which has been used for decades to silence America’s pulpits through IRS intimidation. Below is an article by Mallory Millet which reminds us of a monster that almost occupied America’s most powerful office. ~ TD


Hillary: High Priestess of Western Infanticide

November 6, 2016 – Mallory Millett

Hillary Clinton stands out as the prime purveyor of the practice of infanticide in Western society.  She sells it as a merchant sells his wares and never misses an opportunity to declare a “woman’s right to choose” as if the key “choice” involved appears at that juncture instead of at the moment a woman “chooses” to use her body as an amusement park for pleasure any time she is swarmed with desire, with no regard for the meaning and outcome of sexual abandonment.To Hillary, the inconvenient individual with inimitable DNA who has had the bad manners to appear at an uninvited moment has no right to exist unless the mother is agreeable and so must be swept away into the trash.  No mercy, no compassion, for thee…

Read the article at https://mallorymillett.com/?p=84


I don’t know Mallory Millet, but am so impressed that I hope you read the whole article. She speaks for my conscience as she eviscerates Hillary’s career.

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Princeton ethicist: it's 'reasonable' to kill disabled newborn babies

newborn-baby-reuters
Campus Reform: Princeton professor and animal rights activist Peter Singer argued in a radio interview that it is “reasonable” for healthcare providers, insurance companies, and government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid to kill mentally disabled babies.
Singer appeared on the Aaron Klein Investigative Radio show to discuss his latest book, The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically.
Klein asked Singer—who served as a task force coordinator on President Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign—if he believes that Obamacare will lead to healthcare rationing in the United States, specifically in relation to “disabled” babies. Singer’s answer? It already has.
For example, Singer said, doctors routinely end the life of babies born with brain hemorrhages. “If an infant is born with a massive hemorrhage in the brain that means it will be so severely disabled that if the infant lives it will never even be able to recognize its mother… doctors will turn off the respirator that is keeping that infant alive.”

Peter Singer, bioethicist

Peter Singer, bioethicist


Doctors who kill disabled babies, Singer explains, are likely “just influenced by the fact that this will be a terrible burden for the parents to look after.”
This is not a new position for Professor Singer; on his faculty page on Princeton’s website, Singer argues that “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.” “A normal newborn baby has no sense of the future,” Singer writes, “and therefore is not a person.”
messed up
Similarly, in his 1979 book Practical Ethics, Singer claims that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.” Elsewhere in Practical Ethics, the bioethics professor claims that “[n]o infant—disabled or not—has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities.”
However, while Singer believes infants have little (if any) right to life, he has devoted much of his life to making the exact opposite argument with regard to chimpanzees and other non-human animals.
In 1975, Singer wrote his best-selling book Animal Liberation, which helped him earn a spot on TIME Magazine’s 2005 list of the world’s 100 most influential people. In Animal Liberation, Singer argued that “humans and animals are equal in the sense that the fact that a being is human does not mean that we should give the interests of that being preference over the similar interests of other beings. That would be speciesism.”
In 1993, Singer co-founded “The Great Ape Project,” which defines itself as “an international movement that aims to defend the rights of non-human great primates.” These rights, Singer explains in a 2006 article, include “life [and] liberty.” Singer bases his reasoning on “ the principle of equal consideration of interests,” which he says demands that humans give equal consideration to “non-human animals.” Those who “give greater weight to the interests of members of their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species,” Singer says, are “speciesists.”
While “non-human great primates” have a “right” to life, that same right—according to Singer—does not extend to human infants. In a 2012 op-ed defending abortion, Singer claimed that “membership of the species Homo sapiens is not enough to confer a right to life.”
Singer takes the argument one step further in “Taking Life: Humans” by arguing that if killing a “haemophiliac infant” meant that the infant’s parents could have another child in his place, it would “be right to kill him.”
Most people, Singer argued, would say “I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.”
However, not all members of the Princeton community share Singer’s views towards infanticide. “Peter Singer’s views demonstrate the logical extreme to which a view of personhood based on some developed capability or trait must carry us,” Princeton junior Christine Smith told Campus Reform.
“When personhood is no longer defined by our innate humanity or our intrinsic value, then we necessarily approach a view that embraces the killing of seriously disabled, or even merely unwanted, infants,” she said. While Peter Singer’s views are obviously idiosyncratic, it is important to take them seriously because they reveal the inherent problem of trying to define certain categories of humans as more valuable or more protected than others.”
“[W]e are already taking steps that quite knowingly and intentionally are ending the lives of severely disabled infants,” Singer declared on Sunday. “And I think we ought to be more open in recognizing that this happens.”
DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

The Horror

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH

MORE HORROR: BABIES’ HEADS ‘TWISTED OFF NECK’

author-image

Gosnell, the sequel:
Clinic workers describe atrocious deaths

Published: 16 hours ago – BOB UNRUH
[youtube=https://youtu.be/9fhyJItGPko]

Editor’s Note: The graphic descriptions and images here may be upsetting to readers.

Pro-abortion activists had suggested that with the first-degree murder conviction of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, reporting on atrocities such as his penchant for cutting the spinal cords of babies to kill them would be over.

After all, Gosnell was a renegade, an anomaly, and rightly convicted of murder, touted even the National Abortion Rights Action League.
But wait.
What about the new video released today by the Texas-based Life Dynamics, which reveals three women who used to work for a still-unidentified abortion clinic explaining the methods of death there:
Twisting the baby’s head off his neck.
Shoving a surgical instrument into the vulnerable baby’s brain through the skull.

Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2013/05/more-horror-babies-heads-twisted-off-neck/#iZYri6LM3BCv9DQP.99

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Baby like “Meat in a Crock Pot”

Late-Term Abortion Doc Caught Comparing Unborn Baby to “Meat in a Crock Pot”

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 5/8/13 8:08 AM
The pro-life group Live Action has released a fourth video in a series of undercover videos catching late-term abortion practitioners and abortion clinics misleading women and showing indifference to the destruction of human life.
The videos show embattled abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell is not an anomaly.

Dr. Carhart

Dr. Carhart


The latest investigative video release captures late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart on tape discussing the grisly details of the abortion procedure and misleading a pregnant woman regarding the dangers of abortion.
Cahart’s testimony is shocking and disturbing. He compares the child in the womb to “meat in a Crock-Pot” and then jokes about his abortion toolkit, complete with a “pickaxe” and “drill bit.”
“It’s like putting meat in a Crock-Pot, OK?” he tells the woman considering an abortion.
When a Live Action investigator, who is 26 weeks pregnant, asks about what happens to the baby during the procedure, Dr. Carhart responds:
Dr. Carhart: It gets soft – like, mushy – so you push it through.
Woman: So what makes the baby “mushy”?
Dr. Carhart: The fact that it’s not alive for 2 or 3 days.
Woman: Oh. So I’ll have a dead baby in me?
Dr. Carhart: For 3 days, yeah… It’s like putting meat in a crock pot, okay? … It gets softer. It doesn’t get infected or–
Woman: OK, so the dead baby in me is like meat in a crock pot.
Dr. Carhart: Pretty much, yeah … in a slow cooker.
Dr. Carhart tells an undercover Live Action investigator who is 22 weeks pregnant:
We do a shot into the fetus to end the pregnancy the first day. … Well, if everything works right, you just deliver them and they come out fine. I mean, if for some reason that doesn’t happen, then we have to take them out in pieces…
A twenty-six-week pregnant Live Action investigator inquires what will happen in the case of complications:
Woman: But if we run into trouble … for some reason, I’m not able to deliver, you’ll be able to get it out in pieces.
Dr. Carhart: We’d take it out…
Woman: What do you use to break it up? Just–
Dr. Carhart: A whole bunch of–
Woman: You’ve got a toolkit.
Dr. Carhart: A pickaxe, a drill bit, yeah (laughs).
As Live Action notes:

He casually described the abortion as a “shot into the fetus” to ensure that “[i]t’ll be dead for two days before you deliver it.” He told her the injection also causes the baby to “[get] soft, like mushy [makes squishing sound], so you push it through… so it’s like putting meat in a crock pot.” If this method is unsuccessful, he would  have to remove the baby “in pieces,” using, he joked, “a pickaxe, a drill bit.”
Both investigators asked if Carhart’s abortions “hurt” the babies. He replied by arbitrarily inventing his own parameters for when a fetus feels pain. “so, after about two to three weeks after birth… I think then they have pretty good knowledge of pain, but before that I’m not so sure that they do.” In fact, there is wide consensus in the scientific community that babies feel acute pain by 20 weeks of gestation.

Lila Rose, the president of Live Action issued these comments about the new video:
The video exposes Carhart’s shocking claims that “[a]ll the late abortions Carhart has done in Germantown have involved fetuses with abnormalities[.]” Yet, he was willing to schedule a late-term abortion for our investigator, who was a healthy woman with a healthy pregnancy.
This investigation reveals the horrors of the abortion industry and exposes the true victims in this situation: the mother and her child. Our videos expose the gruesome, illegal, and inhuman practices going on inside many of America’s abortion centers. Instead of this being a rare occurrence, we have proven that this is the norm.
Please watch our latest video now and expose the truth about the abortion industry. LeRoy Carhart and his abortion industry cohorts must be stopped, and this attack on women and their children must be brought to an end.  Women deserve better than this. America deserves better than this.

Late-Term Abortion Doc Caught Comparing Unborn Baby to “Meat in a Crock Pot”

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Wanna see Obama’s “bumps in the road”?

Back in 2008 when I discovered that, as an Illinois state senator, B(arry) S(oetoro) Obama had three-times voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, I knew then that we’re dealing with a cold-hearted SOB. The Born Alive Act extends legal protection to an infant who survives a failed attempt at a late-term abortion. By voting against the Act, B.S. Obama effectively voted for infanticide.

So we really shouldn’t be surprised by the POS’s latest display of his icy pitch-black heart.

Last night, September 23, 2012, on CBS’s 60 Minutes, correspondent Steve Kroft interviewed the POS.

Alluding to the recent attacks on our embassy in Cairo and on our consulate in Benghazi, and the killing of our ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other diplomatic staff members, Kroft asked the POS “if recent events in the Middle East give you any pause about your support for the governments that have come to power following the ‘Arab Spring’.”

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G0KiKroxXfY]

This is what the POS said:

“But…there’ll be bumps in the road…. There are streams of [Islamic] extremism and anti-Americanism and anti-western sentiments that can be tapped into by demagogues. There’ll probably be times when we bump up against some of these countries and have strong disagreements. But I do think that over the long term we’re more likely to get a Middle East and North Africa that’s more peaceful, more prosperous, and more aligned with our interests.”

Here are the “bumps in the road” to which the POS was referring:

Bump No. 1: U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens:

Here’s Bump No. 1’s dead body, showing bruises from having been tortured, being dragged through streets:

Bump No. 2: Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, who was killed along with Amb. Stevens:

Bumps No. 3 and No. 4: Former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty who provided security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and were murdered along with Amb. Stevens and Officer Sean Smith:

Tyrone Woods (l); Glen Doherty (r)

See also “Muslims tortured, killed, dragged U.S. ambassador’s body through streets.” and “2 Navy SEALS killed with Amb. Stevens“.

And yet the polls say this POS with an icy pitch-black heart has the approval of 40% to 50% of Americans.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Why are black Christians still voting for Obama?

Yesterday, during a campaign stop in Milwaukee, the POS got a plug from baseball great Hank Aaron.

Aaron said “I am humbled and honored to share this stage with” Obama, and asked his fans help the POS “hit a grand slam” so “he can continue to move our country forward.”

If the POS moves our country any more forward than he has, America will go right over the cliff.

What is wrong with blacks like Aaron? Is he senile? Does he not know about the $16+ trillion national debt, the 46 million Americans on food stamps, Social Security Disability that will run out of cash in 4 years, the debacle Obama has made of our foreign policy and foreign relations, especially in the Muslim Middle East where our embassies are under siege?

Black Conservative Lloyd Marcus doesn’t get it either. I agree with him: It’s a spiritual problem.

I am on the road touring with Tea Party Express. In my hotel room, I caught an interview with first lady Michelle Obama on “Lift Every Voice”, a faith-based program on BET (Black Entertainment Television). I was amazed at how the black host and program producers portrayed Mrs. Obama and her husband as the couple they want to believe them to be – that is, strongly committed Christians.

In reality, Obama is the most anti-Christian president in U.S. History. Obama’s behavior is irrelevant to the TV program producers. I felt like I was watching an episode of the Twilight Zone in which everything was the opposite of reality.

What on earth is going on in the hearts and minds of most black Americans in regard to Obama? Why are a majority of blacks apparently incapable of honestly accessing President Obama’s job performance?

In past articles, I blamed The Black Code (never side with whites against a fellow black) and plain old basic black racism for black America’s blind loyalty to Obama. However, I must confess that I find myself wondering if something more sinister figures into the mix; a spiritual thing.

The Bible says, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

Is black America bewitched by Obama? Frankly, I do not know. All I know is something really strange is going on in the psyche of many of my fellow blacks regarding Obama, making it impossible for them to honestly critique his job performance or who he is as a person.

For example: A black Christian minister friend is a hard-core liberal Democrat. And yet, he voted for George W. Bush in protest of the Democrats embracing the homosexual agenda. I informed my friend that along with supporting same-sex marriage, Obama has pledged to be an advocate for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities. Knowing that my Christian friend is pro-life, I informed him that not only does Obama support abortion, he supports infanticide. And finally, I shared how 40 Catholic organizations are suing the Obama administration for mandating in Obamacare that Christian institutions fund abortion services.

One would assume that since my friend voted against his party in favor of Christian principles in the past, he would most assuredly vote against them again, given their extreme anti-Christian agenda. Wrong. My black Christian friend is voting for Obama, again.

Here are excerpts from his reply: “I will point out that Bush was supposed to advocate and make laws to stop these things. I voted for him to do so; he didn’t. The issues now are more crucial than the issues identified by you; and while I have not deviated from my stance against these things you name I am force to choose between the lesser of evils. I will assure you that voting for Romney/Ryan will not change these situations any more than voting for Bush did (plus Ryan lied so much even Fox News had to dis him). What will happen however will be that Republican economic principles will hurl us into a worldwide depression so deep it will destroy the world economy as we know it and I add before its time.

He is a president controlled – as every president has been – by powers beyond his power to control from a figurehead position (money rules our political system). This nation will be judged for what its leaders have allowed and I recognized that there are no clean hands here even the ones screaming Christ Our Lord from every campaign perch and every so-called Christian pulpit.”

While dressing his racism up in a nice intellectual well-reasoned-sounding package, clearly, my friend has sold his soul to the devil of skin-color.

So, according to this black minister of God, sacrificing the lives of innocent babies and ignoring the Bible’s opposition to homosexual marriage are lesser evils than allowing Romney/Ryan to win the White House. Dear Lord!

Mitt Romney will defeat Barack Obama in November. America will begin to heal, and we will have another black president someday.

But, what about Obama’s legacy in regards to how his presidency impacted black America? Will Obama leave blacks striving for the highest ideals as did MLK? Unfortunately not. Obama will leave office with blacks behaving at their monolithic worse; voting skin-color over innocent life, national security, the economy and even their once sacred relationship with Christ.

Black America stooped this low once before with their monolithic celebration of OJ Simpson getting away with practically beheading his wife, the mother of his children. But then, she was white.

I am confident that black America will eventually recover from the stains on its character resulting from its shameful, monolithic racist behavior, rallying around the unworthy likes of OJ and Barack Obama.

America desperately longs for a “true leader” to bring us together as a nation. This person’s gender and race are irrelevant. What matters most is his or her character.

Lloyd Marcus, Unhyphenated American
https://www.campaigntodefeatobama.com/rebuild-america-tour/
LloydMarcus.com

And if blacks vote for Obama solely because he’s black, despite differences in fundamental values, doesn’t that make blacks RACISTS?

H/t FOTM’s beloved GrouchyFogie

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0