Hitler Alive And Kicking: “Abortion After Birth” Proposed In Australia
This shocking piece of news reaches us from Australia, where two hopefully hallucinated ethicists (unfortunately, both of them with Italian sounding names) talk of after birth abortion like I talk of the necessity to cull badgers.
The mentality behind these two satanic minds is that at times a child is born with circumstances “which would have justified abortion”, and in that case the abortion should be justified after birth.
Now, I do not know of many circumstances in Australia in which abortion is not justified. It is probably on demand, after going through the obligatory motions. Therefore, the Nazi argument shows its astonishing cruelty already at the start.
Still, the two “ethicists” (hell must be full of them, I think) seem to restrict, in their compassion, the circumstances in which abortion would have been “justified”. Say, the child has Down syndrome. Then, it is “justified” to abort it. Therefore, if after birth it turns out the baby has Down Syndrome they will say to him “we are sorry, chap, but you shouldn’t have been admitted entrance, therefore we’ll have to, erm, ah, oh, well, abort you”.
Notice also the two well know that in Australia the costs for the families of children with Down Syndrome are largely paid and therefore not an issue, but their point is that:
“such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
It is, therefore, an unbearable burden for the State to pay for the welfare of children with Down Syndrome.
Seriously, these people have the brown shirts in the closet, and no mistake.
More in general, though, I must make here the usual considerations about the logic of all this.
The two brown-shirted “ethicists” are, in fact, only thinking to end the abortionist mentality. If one is allowed to kill a baby in the womb, why not outside of it? Is there anyone in a state of sobriety who does not know inside the womb is a perfectly formed baby?
Monsters like the two disgraceful offspring of Italian ancestors therefore do nothing else than point out to the utter monstrosity of abortion.
Still, even abortionists generally try to at least appear compassionate.
These two here think like Heinrich Himmler on a bad day.
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.
Posted on March 3, 2013, in Catholicism and tagged "Abortion after birth", Abortion, Australia, Conservative Catholic, conservative catholicism, Pro-life. Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.
‘St, Michael the Archangel defend in battle’
I’d also add, Mundabor,
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us (x3)
Thank you for pointing this out. The enemy has thrown off all disguise now – be it heretic clergy, the pervasive numbers of sodomites, this disgusting proposition (as well as feminism, Liberalism, the heretical New Theology of men like Balthasar and Cardinal Lubac*, but I needn’t go on) – it’s the modern age in arms.
* Both candidates for the stake in my mind.
Very well said, Patrick!
at first, after-birth abortion will be allowed only in the first trimester of the child’s life, but there will be some unavoidable late-life abortions among unnecessary, useless, inefficient grandparents, too. Later, everyone who does not comply with the orders given out by the modern, enlightened world state will be aborted, if necessary; it will be very clean and ethical and all this. How smooth the world will run, when every problematic individual can simply be aborted, no matter how old?
You know, every man a wanted man, and all this. Paradise on earth…
I can just see every progressive of conscience jumping on this golden opportunity to abort, not just the children of the poor, as they do even now, but the poor themselves.
How can anyone oppose this great step on the relentless march of progress? The world is changing – get with it or get aborted!
How long until some Bishop or Cardinal endorses this great idea out of love and mercy, and because it is just easier to “abort” every former lover of all fifteen currently known genders before they sell their love stories to the press, thereby ending his chances to become Pope or at least elect one?
Beautifully said, catocon.
In fact, at the beginning it is always the extreme case that catches the imagination of the herd (particularly when the herd want their imagination to be caught); then the new legal discipline is enlarged, which after the first big step can go on almost without being noticed.
“Every man a wante dman” means “every unwanted man a murder’s victim”. Not many seem to notice…
You’d be hard-pressed to find a serious moral philosopher who defends abortion without also justifying infanticide.
If the choice is killing newborns up to age two or protecting life in the womb, the pro-life side wins, hands down. “Pro-choicers” can’t even bring themselves to say which choice it is that they affirm.
Frances Kissling, the former president of Catholics for Choice, took to the pages of the Washington Post:
[Our] arguments may have worked in the 1970s, but today, they are failing us . . . The “pro-choice” brand has eroded considerably. . . . We can no longer pretend the foetus is invisible. . . . It may not have a right to life, and its value may not be equal to that of the pregnant woman, but ending the life of a foetus is not a morally insignificant event.
This is the greatest human-rights struggle of our time and all times.
(from an article by R.T. Anderson)