Journal of Medical Ethics
I am going to post portions of a paper that I found while I was doing research for my dear sister Toni Rae Arndt. This is from a liberal organization called "Journal of Medical Ethics" and the paper is titled "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" This is how these people think, so consider this the next time a liberal Democrat tells you that they are caring and compassionate. This is their underlying belief system. This is their philosophy.
Hope you are sitting down:
Beginning:
The fetus and the newborn are potential persons. Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life.
The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent. 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.
Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to 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.
In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasize 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.
The word CONSERVATIVE means someone who wants to keep the natural order of things. We believe in the natural laws that were established in the creation of the universes and to align ourselves and our societies with those natural laws.
LIBERAL means someone who wants to change the order of things. Progressive is another euphemism, and that word is not so obvious. The idea of 'progressing' comes from the secular humanist (satanic) concept that if we continue to gain in knowledge, then we can rule the universe and improve on natural laws. In other words, we become God. Therefore, we have the ability to rationalize and explain away evil and make it sound like it's compassionate and caring.
The concepts of 'good' and 'evil' are rooted in the idea that we, as humans, are smarter than the Universe. Can you imagine anything so foolish? Evil goes against nature, good aligns with it. The story about the Garden of Eden is about the warning that humans should not worship knowledge, as that belief system does bad things. This document, a portion of which I posted, is the perfect example of that warning. It is evil incarnate.
What I find interesting, is that liberals (Democrats) try to associate conservatives with fascism and Nazism, wherein both fascists and Nazis were democratic liberals. By definition the Nazi party were democrats, that's what Nazi means in German, the national democratic party. Fascists, Nazism, Socialism, Communism, these are all liberal concepts that always end up being evil, now you know why. The 'how' is that they appeal to common avarice and through a majority vote concept, democracy, they can convince most people to endorse evil and even think they are doing good.
As kindly and well-meaning as our Democrat friends may appear to be, they are influenced by evil.