Excerpt from AP article:
"An unlicensed doctor pleaded guilty on Thursday to third-degree
murder in the deaths of two late-term babies who were born alive and
then killed with scissors at a filthy Philadelphia abortion clinic.
*****************
The question many are asking is, "why is this considered murder?"
Should the location of a child determine their legal status as a person? Clearly, if it is legal to murder a child up until birth, it is logically consistent for this legality to extend for some time after birth as well.
In Canada, a woman recently strangled her newborn to death and threw him over a fence. She was not found guilty for murder, by an appeals court. She may have in fact been punished more severely for littering by throwing him over the fence (16 days in jail versus probation for infanticide).
When the value of a human being is arbitrarily decided absent of a moral standard of what constitutes life, humanity, personhood, murder, etc, then this is the logical outcome. The same underlying philosophy for the Canadian ruling already exists in America. Expect a similar ruling in the near future.
To take a poll about when you think personhood commences and what method is used to define this, go to this link to discuss this issue: http://my.umbc.edu/groups/truth/discussions/2718
<><
"An unlicensed doctor pleaded guilty on Thursday to third-degree
murder in the deaths of two late-term babies who were born alive and
then killed with scissors at a filthy Philadelphia abortion clinic.
Steven Massof, 49, of Pittsburgh, pleaded guilty to two counts of third-degree murder, murder conspiracy and other charges.
Massof
testified to a grand jury that he snipped the spines of more than 100
babies after seeing them breathe, move or show other signs of life.
"Severing
the spinal cords of moving, breathing babies outside their mothers'
wombs was, according to Massof, 'standard procedure,'" the grand jury
report centered on Dr. Kermit Gosnell's clinic charged."
*****************
*****************
The question many are asking is, "why is this considered murder?"
Should the location of a child determine their legal status as a person? Clearly, if it is legal to murder a child up until birth, it is logically consistent for this legality to extend for some time after birth as well.
In Canada, a woman recently strangled her newborn to death and threw him over a fence. She was not found guilty for murder, by an appeals court. She may have in fact been punished more severely for littering by throwing him over the fence (16 days in jail versus probation for infanticide).
When the value of a human being is arbitrarily decided absent of a moral standard of what constitutes life, humanity, personhood, murder, etc, then this is the logical outcome. The same underlying philosophy for the Canadian ruling already exists in America. Expect a similar ruling in the near future.
To take a poll about when you think personhood commences and what method is used to define this, go to this link to discuss this issue: http://my.umbc.edu/groups/truth/discussions/2718
<><
