Rep. Chris Smith

,

Rep. Chris Smith slams justification of infanticide

Rep. Chris Smith
By Rep. Chris Smith
Image

WASHINGTON, MARCH 8, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Late last month, two bioethicists—Dr. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva—published an outrageous “paper” in the Journal of Medical Ethics justifying the deliberate, premeditated murder of newborn babies during the first days and weeks after birth.

Giubilini and Minerva wrote “when circumstances occur after birth that would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

If a newly born child poses an economic burden on a family, or is disabled, or is unwanted, that child can be murdered in cold blood because the baby lacks intrinsic value, and according to Giubilini and Minerva, is not a person.

Giubilini and Minerva wrote, “actual people’s well-being could be threatened by a newborn even if healthy child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of.”

As any parents—especially moms—will tell you, children in general and newborns in particular require enormous energy, money and boatloads of love. If any of these are lacking or pose what Giubilini and Minerva called a “threat,” does that justify a death sentence?

Are the lives of newborn babies so cheap? Are babies so expendable?

The murder of newly born children is further justified by Giubilini and Minerva because newborn infants, like their slightly younger sisters and brothers in the womb, “cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing.”

In other words, no dreams, no plans for the future, no “aims” that can be discerned, recognized or understood by adults, no life.

This preposterous, arbitrary and evil prerequisite for the attainment of legal personhood is not only bizarre—it is inhumane in the extreme. Stripped of its pseudo-intellectual underpinnings, Giubilini and Minerva rationale for murdering newborns in the nursery is indistinguishable from any other child predator wielding a knife or gun.

Giubilini and Minerva say the devaluation of newborn babies is inextricably linked to the devaluation of unborn children, and is indeed the logical extension of the abortion culture, and wrote that they, “propose to call the practice afterbirth abortion rather than infanticide to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed—the newborn baby—is comparable with that of a fetus… Whether she will exist is exactly what our choice is about.”

These anti-child, pro-murder rationalizations remind me of other, equally disturbing rants from highly credentialed individuals. Princeton’s Peter Singer suggested a couple of years ago that, “There are various things you could say that are sufficient to give some moral status [to a child] after a few months, maybe six months or something like that, and you get perhaps to full moral status, really, only after two years.”

Dr. James Watson, Nobel laureate for unraveling the mystery of DNA, wrote in Prism Magazine, “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have.”

In like manner, Dr. Francis Crick, who received the Nobel Prize with Watson, said that, “…no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live.”

The dehumanization of newborns isn’t new but it’s getting worse.

Giubilini and Minerva’s article must be a wakeup call. The lives of young children—an unprotected class—are under assault. Hard questions need to be asked and answered, and defenders of life must mobilized. We have a duty to protect the weakest and most vulnerable from violence.

As lawmakers, we must strive for consistency.

Why do so many who claim to be proponents of human rights systematically dehumanize and exclude the weakest and most vulnerable human beings from legal protection?

Why the modern-day surge in prejudice and ugly bias against unborn children and newborns? Why the policy of exclusion, rather than inclusion?     
Why is lethal violence against children—abortion and premeditated killing of newborn infants—marketed and sold as benign, progressive, enlightened and compassionate?
         
Why have so many “good people” turned a blind eye and looked askance as mothers are wounded by abortion and babies in the womb are pulverized by suction machines twenty to thirty times more powerful than household vacuum cleaners, or dismembered with surgical knives or poisoned with chemicals? Looking back, how could anyone in this House, or Senate or both President’s Obama and Clinton, justify the hideous procedure called partial birth abortion?
         
Since 1973, over 54,000,000 babies have had abortion forced on them. Some of those children have been exterminated in the second and third trimester—pain capable babies—who suffered excruciating pain as the abortionist committed his violence.

Why are some surprised that the new emerging class of victims—newborns—are being slaughtered in Holland and elsewhere, while a perverse proposal to murder any newborn child—sick or healthy—is advanced in an otherwise serious and respected ethics journal?

Children—born and unborn—are precious.

Children—sick, disabled or healthy—possess fundamental human rights that no sane or compassionate society can abridge.

The premeditated murder of newborn babies is being justified as morally equivalent to abortion.

Congress, the courts, the president and society at large have a sacred duty to protect all children from violence, murder and exploitation. We don’t have a moment to lose.

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:

Donate to LifeSiteNews

Give the gift of Truth.


Share this article

Advertisement
Hillary Clinton
Shutterstock
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, , ,

For Hillary Clinton, abortion access trumps religious liberty

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 1, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- For Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, apparently abortion trumps religious liberty.

It may have gotten bipartisan support in the House of Representatives last night, but a spokesperson for the Democratic Party's leading presidential candidate says a resolution protecting religious liberty in the District of Columbia "overrule[s] the democratic process" and hurts women.

The vote, which saw three Democrats join the GOP majority and 13 Republicans stand with Democrats, was meant to protect pro-life and religious organizations in the District from the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA).

RHNDA was signed by the mayor of the District of Columbia, Muriel Bowser, in January, and makes it illegal for any employer, including religious and pro-life organizations, to use a person's belief or actions about abortion in employment considerations. It also requires employers to provide abortion coverage.

The resolution now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to fail due to the Senate being on recess. Under existing federal law, the measure has 30 legislative days to be disapproved by Congress and President Obama. If this does not happen, it becomes law.

The 30-day window ends on Saturday. President Obama promised a veto of the resolution on Thursday, even though RHNDA was opposed by former District mayor Vincent Gray. According to Gray, while he "applaud[s] the goals of this legislation," the former mayor believes RHNDA could violate the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment under the law.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The statement by the Clinton campaign left no doubt that she stood with Obama and a majority of Democratic legislators. Spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri told CNN, "Hillary Clinton has fought for women and families and their right to access the full range of reproductive health care without interference from politicians or employers."

"Hillary will fight to make it easier, not more difficult, for women and families to get ahead and ensure that women are not discriminated against for personal medical decisions."

The remarks come a week after Clinton took criticism for saying that "religious beliefs" critical of "reproductive rights" must "be changed."

“Yes, we've cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health,” she told the Women in the World Summit on April 23.

“Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper," said Clinton in her speech. "Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will."

“Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed,” said the candidate.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, ,

Social conservatives may be funding the destruction of marriage: corporate watchdog

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

May 1, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- With over $55 million in annual revenue, the Human Rights Campaign may be America's most powerful LGBT activist group. And according to a conservative corporate watchdog, that's in part because social conservatives are funding it.

"Conservatives would be surprised to know that many of the dollars they spend every day are helping fund an agenda that seeks to destroy traditional marriage and undermine religious freedoms," said 2nd Vote National Outreach Director Robert Kuykendall. "Even when they purchase a beverage from a company like Coca-cola or Starbucks, their dollar is going to support HRC's liberal agenda to redefine marriage."

Less than 18 months old, 2nd Vote has graded hundreds of corporations on six issues -- corporate welfare, the environment, education, support for the Second Amendment, abortion, and as of two weeks ago, same-sex "marriage." Using their "scoring" system, 2nd Vote ranks corporations on their direct or indirect involvement with these hot-button public policy and cultural issues.

And according to them, some of America's favorite corporations are making the radical HRC agenda possible.

"HRC is the largest LGBT lobbying organization in the United States with reported revenues of over $55 million," Kuykendall told LifeSiteNews. "The redefinition of marriage and the undermining of religious freedom are major components of HRC’s policy agenda. To fund their policy goals, HRC has enlisted the help of many major corporations that we do business with every day to help fund. Over a third of the contributions received by HRC are listed as 'Corporate/Foundation Grants.'" 

Why should conservatives care about corporate donors to HRC? Kuykendall says the organization is both politically influential and publicly deceptive. "Last election cycle, HRC spent around a million dollars on electioneering activities and in support of liberal candidates willing to push their legislative agenda. HRC is responsible for spreading much of the misinformation regarding [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] laws and has also mischaracterized the protections provided by these laws."

"HRC organized a massive grassroots campaign in support of the legal battle to overturn state laws protecting marriage and influence the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges," said Kuykendall.

Marriage isn't the only issue on which conservatives may be at odds with HRC's corporate backers. "2nd Vote’s research into other issues such as life, the environment, and the 2nd Amendment shows that many of the companies supporting HRC have taken liberal stands on other issues as well,” he said. “For example, Apple, Citigroup, Microsoft, and Coca-Cola are Platinum Partners, the highest level of HRC’s National Corporate Partners, that have also funded the liberal Center for American Progress [CAP]."

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

"Bank of America, Google, Goldman Sachs, Starbucks, PepsiCo, and Morgan Stanley are also HRC Corporate Partners that have funded CAP. Furthermore, all of these companies signed the amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn state marriage laws."

In Indiana, the state's religious liberty law was modified because of corporate pressure led by Tim Cook, Apple's gay CEO. Kuykendall says conservatives should not give up, though he acknowledges that "for too long, conservatives have let liberals and groups like HRC bully companies into not just going along with their agenda, but actively funding and promoting it."

"However, conservatives have also proven their ability to mobilize and use their dollars in support of traditional values as we’ve seen through the fundraising campaigns for the pizza parlor and wedding cake makers who have been attacked by liberals for their beliefs. Conservatives need to turn the tables on the left, and groups like HRC, and motivate companies to stop funding the liberal agenda through the power of their shopping habits."

Only nine companies have ranks of "five" or "four" on 2nd Vote's ranking system, indicating a pro-marriage perspective. They are outnumbered more than 10 to 1 by organizations that support redefining marriage.

Concerned citizens can download the app on 2nd Vote's website. The full list of corporation scores can be found here.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Fr. Mark Hodges

First graders exposed to book about transgender boy—without parental notification

Fr. Mark Hodges
By Fr. Mark Hodges

KITTERY POINT, ME, May 1, 2015, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Parents at one Maine school are upset that children as young as six were exposed to a book promoting transgender issues, in the name of "acceptance."

Parents were not only not consulted, they were never even notified of their children's exposure to transgenderism.

Horace Mitchell Primary School read the book I Am Jazz to first-grade students. The book is about a boy who identifies as a girl from the age of two, "with a boy's body and a girl's brain." He eventually finds a doctor who tells his parents, "Jazz is transgender."

Parents began to inquire about what was being taught at Horace Mitchell Primary after children came home with questions about their own sex and wondering if they, too, might be transgender.

One mother, upset that teachers would broach the subject of transgenderism with her little boy, said the primary school ignored her complaint. "I feel like my thoughts, feelings and beliefs were completely ignored...My right as a parent to allow or not allow this discussion with my child was taken from me," she told Hannity.com.

"When I spoke with the principal he was very cold about it," the mother continued. "It's amazing how thoughtless the school has been with this whole thing."

Only after Sean Hannity made national inquiries did Horace Mitchell Primary School suggest that teachers should have told parents ahead of time.

Allyn Hutton, the superintendent of the local district, said she supported reading the book but admitted that parents should have been given advance warning about the subject matter. "We have a practice of – if a topic is considered sensitive – parents should be informed. In this situation, that didn't happen," she said. "We understand that toleration is tolerating people of all opinions."

Horace Mitchell Primary School sent an e-mail, after the fact, to concerned parents, including a link to a blog post of the school's guidance counselor, explaining their motivation was "cultivating respect."

"Some may think primary school students are too young to worry about addressing issues surrounding gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) students. Not so, experts say,” the school's guidance counselor wrote. “It’s never too early to begin teaching children about respecting differences."

Homosexual activists say they support the teaching of transgenderism to first-graders, with or without parental notification. "The staff of Mitchell School is...shedding a light on [LGBTQ] issues,” said a column in Gay Star News.

The LGBT puublication goes even further, advocating homosexual propaganda be commonplace in elementary schools across the country. "LGBTQ issues should never be classified as a 'sensitive subject,' [because] there is nothing sensitive about the way we are born. Blonde hair, brown hair, gay, straight or somewhere in-between."

Brian Camenker of MassResistance commented on the infiltration of homosexual propaganda in children's schools. "We deal with parents and teachers a lot, and the idea that teachers would do this is unconscionable. It's like the people that promote this stuff are evil. It's demonic. You can't imagine adults that would do this to other people's children, and do it with such anger, and such vitrol.”

Camenker emphasized that this is “not an isolated incident with just one, rogue teacher. This happens because the whole administrative hierarchy buys into it.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

“The new generation of educators is very, very frightening,” he said.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook